<?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 1386 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367650</link>
    <description>The court set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, as there was no direct evidence linking the appellant to the misclassification of goods. The court ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal based on the lack of specific implication of the appellant in misleading the importer regarding the classification of goods.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2018 08:21:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=535599" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 1386 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367650</link>
      <description>The court set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, as there was no direct evidence linking the appellant to the misclassification of goods. The court ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal based on the lack of specific implication of the appellant in misleading the importer regarding the classification of goods.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367650</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>