<?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 (9) TMI 509 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366773</link>
    <description>The Tribunal reduced the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 for facilitating smuggling activity at the Airport. The penalty was reduced to Rs. 4 lakhs to be paid in installments due to the appellant&#039;s financial hardship, despite acknowledging his involvement in the offense. The decision aimed to balance deterrence with the appellant&#039;s ability to pay, considering his role as a facilitator rather than the main smuggler.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2018 12:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=533815" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 509 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366773</link>
      <description>The Tribunal reduced the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 for facilitating smuggling activity at the Airport. The penalty was reduced to Rs. 4 lakhs to be paid in installments due to the appellant&#039;s financial hardship, despite acknowledging his involvement in the offense. The decision aimed to balance deterrence with the appellant&#039;s ability to pay, considering his role as a facilitator rather than the main smuggler.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366773</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>