<?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>2018 (4) TMI 1050 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358939</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld M/S Maersk India Pvt Ltd&#039;s duty liability for allegedly pilfered goods, imposing penalties under the Customs Act, 1962 due to significant quantity discrepancies. The rejection of the request for re-export and cross-examination did not prejudice the appellant. The custodian&#039;s failure to verify goods and ensure safe delivery breached responsibilities, leading to duty liability. The tribunal clarified that penalties under section 117 were not warranted for custodial negligence. While duty recovery was upheld, confiscation of non-offending goods and penalties were set aside, concluding no basis for such actions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2018 12:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=517543" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 1050 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358939</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld M/S Maersk India Pvt Ltd&#039;s duty liability for allegedly pilfered goods, imposing penalties under the Customs Act, 1962 due to significant quantity discrepancies. The rejection of the request for re-export and cross-examination did not prejudice the appellant. The custodian&#039;s failure to verify goods and ensure safe delivery breached responsibilities, leading to duty liability. The tribunal clarified that penalties under section 117 were not warranted for custodial negligence. While duty recovery was upheld, confiscation of non-offending goods and penalties were set aside, concluding no basis for such actions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358939</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>