<?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 (6) TMI 741 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361914</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the suspension of the CHA license and penalty imposed under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, as there was no provision to penalize a CHA under CHALR, 2004. It was determined that the CHA was not informed of the exporter&#039;s dubious intention, and the responsibility for attempting to export prohibited goods lay with the exporter, not the CHA. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was overturned.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Jun 2018 10:51:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=523782" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 741 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361914</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the suspension of the CHA license and penalty imposed under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, as there was no provision to penalize a CHA under CHALR, 2004. It was determined that the CHA was not informed of the exporter&#039;s dubious intention, and the responsibility for attempting to export prohibited goods lay with the exporter, not the CHA. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was overturned.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361914</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>