<?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>Court Upholds Penalty for Gold Smuggling, Citing Petitioner&#039;s Knowledge and Intent Under Customs Act Sections 112(a) &amp; (b.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=75970</link>
    <description>Levy of penalty - smuggling of Gold - baggage rules - The case involved the petitioner&#039;s challenge against the imposition of a penalty under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, for the importation of gold contrary to prohibition. Despite the petitioner&#039;s claims of ignorance, the court found evidence suggesting his knowledge and intent in carrying and concealing the gold. - The court clarified the difference between the strict liability concept u/s 112(a) and the requirement of mens rea u/s 112(b) - The court upheld the imposition of the penalty, emphasizing the petitioner&#039;s awareness of the law and the prohibited nature of the goods.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2024 08:37:09 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2024 08:37:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=747864" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Court Upholds Penalty for Gold Smuggling, Citing Petitioner&#039;s Knowledge and Intent Under Customs Act Sections 112(a) &amp; (b.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=75970</link>
      <description>Levy of penalty - smuggling of Gold - baggage rules - The case involved the petitioner&#039;s challenge against the imposition of a penalty under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, for the importation of gold contrary to prohibition. Despite the petitioner&#039;s claims of ignorance, the court found evidence suggesting his knowledge and intent in carrying and concealing the gold. - The court clarified the difference between the strict liability concept u/s 112(a) and the requirement of mens rea u/s 112(b) - The court upheld the imposition of the penalty, emphasizing the petitioner&#039;s awareness of the law and the prohibited nature of the goods.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2024 08:37:09 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=75970</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>