<?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>2022 (8) TMI 555 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426316</link>
    <description>An effective opportunity of hearing is required before adjudication, and repeated notices alone do not cure a denial where the appellant&#039;s changed address prevented appearance and was not communicated through the customs house agent. The tribunal declined to examine valuation, confiscation, duty demand, or penalties, and set aside the adjudication order only as against the appellant, remitting the matter for fresh adjudication after a proper hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Aug 2022 08:05:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=687832" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (8) TMI 555 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426316</link>
      <description>An effective opportunity of hearing is required before adjudication, and repeated notices alone do not cure a denial where the appellant&#039;s changed address prevented appearance and was not communicated through the customs house agent. The tribunal declined to examine valuation, confiscation, duty demand, or penalties, and set aside the adjudication order only as against the appellant, remitting the matter for fresh adjudication after a proper hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426316</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>