<?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 963 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339263</link>
    <description>Penal and confiscatory consequences for export misdeclaration require evidence that the person proceeded against actually participated in, filed, or caused the false declaration, or otherwise had a direct nexus with the offending act. Where a party was only involved in discounting export bills, and shipping bills were prepared by another entity, liability for misdeclaration, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties was not established. Likewise, penalty under the Customs Act for alleged diversion of imported goods cannot be sustained without a specific act, omission, or participation by the person penalised; mere business association, shared premises, or assistance in business matters is insufficient. On these facts, the impugned confiscation and penalties were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Mar 2017 18:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=459445" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 963 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339263</link>
      <description>Penal and confiscatory consequences for export misdeclaration require evidence that the person proceeded against actually participated in, filed, or caused the false declaration, or otherwise had a direct nexus with the offending act. Where a party was only involved in discounting export bills, and shipping bills were prepared by another entity, liability for misdeclaration, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties was not established. Likewise, penalty under the Customs Act for alleged diversion of imported goods cannot be sustained without a specific act, omission, or participation by the person penalised; mere business association, shared premises, or assistance in business matters is insufficient. On these facts, the impugned confiscation and penalties were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339263</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>