<?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 (11) TMI 102 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369759</link>
    <description>Imported goods liable to confiscation for want of the requisite clearance and NOC remained subject to redemption fine and penalty even where re-export was ordered. Permission to re-export did not displace the confiscation scheme or prevent imposition of redemption fine under that scheme and penalty under the penal provision. The authority was therefore competent to levy both in principle, although the quantum was moderated on the facts and the amounts were reduced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Nov 2018 13:42:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=540460" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 102 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369759</link>
      <description>Imported goods liable to confiscation for want of the requisite clearance and NOC remained subject to redemption fine and penalty even where re-export was ordered. Permission to re-export did not displace the confiscation scheme or prevent imposition of redemption fine under that scheme and penalty under the penal provision. The authority was therefore competent to levy both in principle, although the quantum was moderated on the facts and the amounts were reduced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369759</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>