<?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 (9) TMI 1455 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348698</link>
    <description>Undeclared baggage goods treated as prohibited goods under the Customs Act and the Foreign Trade framework did not compel an option of redemption fine under Section 125. Because the authorities concurrently found the baggage non bona fide and sustained absolute confiscation on independent reasoning, the HC found no legal or factual error warranting writ interference. The challenge failed, and the confiscation and penalty determinations remained intact.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2018 11:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=490779" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 1455 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348698</link>
      <description>Undeclared baggage goods treated as prohibited goods under the Customs Act and the Foreign Trade framework did not compel an option of redemption fine under Section 125. Because the authorities concurrently found the baggage non bona fide and sustained absolute confiscation on independent reasoning, the HC found no legal or factual error warranting writ interference. The challenge failed, and the confiscation and penalty determinations remained intact.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348698</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>