<?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 (9) TMI 1113 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386345</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld penalties imposed under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, on firms for misdeclaration of imported goods&#039; value. It clarified penalties could apply to co-noticees even if the main noticee settled the issue. The Tribunal emphasized adherence to statutory wording, dismissing appeals and affirming penalties set by the Commissioner. The decision was rendered on 24.09.2019.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2019 07:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=588762" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (9) TMI 1113 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386345</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld penalties imposed under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, on firms for misdeclaration of imported goods&#039; value. It clarified penalties could apply to co-noticees even if the main noticee settled the issue. The Tribunal emphasized adherence to statutory wording, dismissing appeals and affirming penalties set by the Commissioner. The decision was rendered on 24.09.2019.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386345</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>