<?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>2009 (4) TMI 29 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33203</link>
    <description>Import of second-hand incomplete photocopying machines was treated as contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy and liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, with redemption allowed on fine and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced both amounts after finding first-time import, no misdeclaration, and no material showing intent to evade duty; the Tribunal upheld that discretionary reduction as not perverse. The High Court held that the authorities had acted on relevant facts, that a bona fide mistake could not be excluded because the machines were incomplete, and that no substantial question of law arose. The reduction in redemption fine and penalty was therefore sustained and the appeals failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2010 12:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71837" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 29 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33203</link>
      <description>Import of second-hand incomplete photocopying machines was treated as contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy and liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, with redemption allowed on fine and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced both amounts after finding first-time import, no misdeclaration, and no material showing intent to evade duty; the Tribunal upheld that discretionary reduction as not perverse. The High Court held that the authorities had acted on relevant facts, that a bona fide mistake could not be excluded because the machines were incomplete, and that no substantial question of law arose. The reduction in redemption fine and penalty was therefore sustained and the appeals failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33203</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>