<?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 1181 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352912</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the imposition of penalties and redemption fine under the Customs Act, 1962, for exporting goods without obtaining a license from D.G.F.T. The appellant&#039;s argument that no redemption fine should apply was dismissed, with penalties totaling Rs. 17,87,420 imposed for deliberate breach of law. The tribunal reviewed and reduced the excessive redemption fine to Rs. 1,02,24,680 based on market value. Penalties were upheld as a deterrent against contravention of the law, including on the General Manager-Marketing of the appellant for necessary human intervention in the company&#039;s infractions. The appeal of the company was partially allowed, while the appeal of the General Manager was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2019 15:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=501074" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 1181 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352912</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the imposition of penalties and redemption fine under the Customs Act, 1962, for exporting goods without obtaining a license from D.G.F.T. The appellant&#039;s argument that no redemption fine should apply was dismissed, with penalties totaling Rs. 17,87,420 imposed for deliberate breach of law. The tribunal reviewed and reduced the excessive redemption fine to Rs. 1,02,24,680 based on market value. Penalties were upheld as a deterrent against contravention of the law, including on the General Manager-Marketing of the appellant for necessary human intervention in the company&#039;s infractions. The appeal of the company was partially allowed, while the appeal of the General Manager was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352912</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>