<?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 (12) TMI 33 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351764</link>
    <description>Confiscation of imported used computer parts was upheld because the record showed the importer owned the goods, participated in the customs proceedings, and had written that the goods were brought for testing and would be re-exported after testing. On that basis, confiscation and penalty were treated as lawful. The redemption fine and penalty, however, were found excessive and reduced in quantum.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Dec 2017 08:09:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=498272" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 33 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351764</link>
      <description>Confiscation of imported used computer parts was upheld because the record showed the importer owned the goods, participated in the customs proceedings, and had written that the goods were brought for testing and would be re-exported after testing. On that basis, confiscation and penalty were treated as lawful. The redemption fine and penalty, however, were found excessive and reduced in quantum.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351764</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>