<?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 937 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367201</link>
    <description>Import of restricted second-hand goods without authorisation was treated as liable to confiscation, but the quantum of redemption fine and penalty had to be assessed with reference to the margin of profit and the low differential duty. As the duty difference across the bills of entry was relatively small, the original fine was found excessive on the facts. The redemption fine was therefore moderated to Rs. 1 lakh in each case, and the penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2018 06:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=534645" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 937 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367201</link>
      <description>Import of restricted second-hand goods without authorisation was treated as liable to confiscation, but the quantum of redemption fine and penalty had to be assessed with reference to the margin of profit and the low differential duty. As the duty difference across the bills of entry was relatively small, the original fine was found excessive on the facts. The redemption fine was therefore moderated to Rs. 1 lakh in each case, and the penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367201</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>