<?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>Confiscation of Goods Unjustified: Drill Bits Were Only 5% of Consignment, No Intentional Misdeclaration u/s 112(m) Customs Act.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=48062</link>
    <description>Confiscation - the undeclared ‘drill bits’ constituted just a mere 5% of the total consignment, it would appear that there has been no deliberate attempt to mis-declare on the part of the importer - the confiscation of the goods under section 112(m) of Customs Act, 1962 and the imposition of redemption fine, along with penalties, does not appear to be sustainable in law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jul 2019 08:18:24 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Jul 2019 08:18:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=579989" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Confiscation of Goods Unjustified: Drill Bits Were Only 5% of Consignment, No Intentional Misdeclaration u/s 112(m) Customs Act.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=48062</link>
      <description>Confiscation - the undeclared ‘drill bits’ constituted just a mere 5% of the total consignment, it would appear that there has been no deliberate attempt to mis-declare on the part of the importer - the confiscation of the goods under section 112(m) of Customs Act, 1962 and the imposition of redemption fine, along with penalties, does not appear to be sustainable in law.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jul 2019 08:18:24 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=48062</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>