<?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 722 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426483</link>
    <description>Used tyres imported without the requisite licence were treated as restricted goods liable to confiscation for misdeclaration and unauthorised import, but the quantum of redemption fine and penalty remained a discretionary matter tied to the gravity of the offence. The appellate authority was held to have power under the Customs Act to confirm, modify or annul confiscation-related orders, including the fine and penalty. Applying that appellate power, the reduction of the redemption fine and penalty was upheld because comparable precedents supported the revision and the undervaluation was not shown to justify interference; the revenue challenge therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Aug 2022 16:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=688159" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (8) TMI 722 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426483</link>
      <description>Used tyres imported without the requisite licence were treated as restricted goods liable to confiscation for misdeclaration and unauthorised import, but the quantum of redemption fine and penalty remained a discretionary matter tied to the gravity of the offence. The appellate authority was held to have power under the Customs Act to confirm, modify or annul confiscation-related orders, including the fine and penalty. Applying that appellate power, the reduction of the redemption fine and penalty was upheld because comparable precedents supported the revision and the undervaluation was not shown to justify interference; the revenue challenge therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426483</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>