<?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 (3) TMI 96 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33663</link>
    <description>Redemption of confiscated prohibited goods is permissible under Section 125 of the Customs Act unless the statute expressly excludes that option. The provision authorises an adjudicating authority to offer redemption on payment of fine even where goods are prohibited under the statutory export-control scheme; no limitation to absolutely prohibited goods may be read into it. Appellate interference with penalties imposed through statutory discretion requires a proper basis showing that the original exercise of discretion was flawed. Accordingly, redemption of confiscated sandalwood on payment of fine was sustained, while the reduction of the firm&#039;s penalty and deletion of the partner&#039;s penalty were unsustainable and the original penalties were restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72292" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 96 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33663</link>
      <description>Redemption of confiscated prohibited goods is permissible under Section 125 of the Customs Act unless the statute expressly excludes that option. The provision authorises an adjudicating authority to offer redemption on payment of fine even where goods are prohibited under the statutory export-control scheme; no limitation to absolutely prohibited goods may be read into it. Appellate interference with penalties imposed through statutory discretion requires a proper basis showing that the original exercise of discretion was flawed. Accordingly, redemption of confiscated sandalwood on payment of fine was sustained, while the reduction of the firm&#039;s penalty and deletion of the partner&#039;s penalty were unsustainable and the original penalties were restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33663</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>