<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2017 (2) TMI 234 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338534</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the order-in-original that rejected the declared value, enhanced the assessable value, confirmed the differential duty, confiscated the goods, and imposed penalties under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal affirmed the penalties imposed under sections 112 and 114A, emphasizing the importer&#039;s liability and justifying the multiple penalties based on the nature of the offenses.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2018 17:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=457711" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 234 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338534</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the order-in-original that rejected the declared value, enhanced the assessable value, confirmed the differential duty, confiscated the goods, and imposed penalties under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal affirmed the penalties imposed under sections 112 and 114A, emphasizing the importer&#039;s liability and justifying the multiple penalties based on the nature of the offenses.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338534</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>