<?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>2019 (1) TMI 668 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373503</link>
    <description>Import restriction and licensing conditions for rough marble blocks were not complied with, so confiscation was justified. The declared value, as redetermined under the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, was accepted and not disputed. However, the quantum of redemption fine and penalty was examined with reference to Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the margin of profit in normal trade, and the amounts were reduced in line with earlier similar cases.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Jan 2019 11:18:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=552968" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (1) TMI 668 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373503</link>
      <description>Import restriction and licensing conditions for rough marble blocks were not complied with, so confiscation was justified. The declared value, as redetermined under the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, was accepted and not disputed. However, the quantum of redemption fine and penalty was examined with reference to Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the margin of profit in normal trade, and the amounts were reduced in line with earlier similar cases.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373503</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>