<?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 (8) TMI 336 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384147</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the recovery of the differential duty and the chargeability of interest, while setting aside the confiscation of goods and the penalty imposed on the appellant. The decision clarified the applicability of Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962, in cases of duty recovery and emphasized the importance of fulfilling contractual obligations under the EXIM policy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Jan 2020 13:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=582711" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (8) TMI 336 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384147</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the recovery of the differential duty and the chargeability of interest, while setting aside the confiscation of goods and the penalty imposed on the appellant. The decision clarified the applicability of Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962, in cases of duty recovery and emphasized the importance of fulfilling contractual obligations under the EXIM policy.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384147</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>