<?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 (5) TMI 1067 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360503</link>
    <description>The penalty imposed on the appellant under Regulation 20(7) and 18 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations for illegal export of a controlled substance was set aside. The appellate authority found insufficient evidence linking the appellant to the concealment of the substance, leading to the conclusion that the penalty was unjustified. As a result, the penalty was overturned, and the appeal was successful.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2018 11:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=520773" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 1067 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360503</link>
      <description>The penalty imposed on the appellant under Regulation 20(7) and 18 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations for illegal export of a controlled substance was set aside. The appellate authority found insufficient evidence linking the appellant to the concealment of the substance, leading to the conclusion that the penalty was unjustified. As a result, the penalty was overturned, and the appeal was successful.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360503</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>