<?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 (10) TMI 299 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349144</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI ruled on a case involving mis-declaration of goods, where the appellants were found to have imported serviceable wheels instead of scraps as declared. The Tribunal confirmed the imposition of penalties and a redemption fine due to deliberate mis-declaration. Despite presenting a certificate post-importation, it was deemed irrelevant. The Tribunal reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 8 lakhs based on a previous apex court ratio but upheld the penalty on the appellant-company. A lesser personal penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs was imposed on one appellant to deter future mis-declaration. Both appeals were partly allowed with adjustments.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Oct 2017 08:59:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=491740" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 299 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349144</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI ruled on a case involving mis-declaration of goods, where the appellants were found to have imported serviceable wheels instead of scraps as declared. The Tribunal confirmed the imposition of penalties and a redemption fine due to deliberate mis-declaration. Despite presenting a certificate post-importation, it was deemed irrelevant. The Tribunal reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 8 lakhs based on a previous apex court ratio but upheld the penalty on the appellant-company. A lesser personal penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs was imposed on one appellant to deter future mis-declaration. Both appeals were partly allowed with adjustments.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349144</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>