<?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>2024 (4) TMI 124 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750943</link>
    <description>The Tribunal modified the adjudicating authority&#039;s order by reducing the redemption fine from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 2,50,000 and the penalty from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 20,000 under the Customs Act, 1962. The Bench found no deliberate intent to misdeclare the goods, as the appellant intended to import only Aluminium scrap. The appeal was partly allowed, and the assisting counsel&#039;s efforts were noted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2024 05:14:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=749024" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (4) TMI 124 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750943</link>
      <description>The Tribunal modified the adjudicating authority&#039;s order by reducing the redemption fine from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 2,50,000 and the penalty from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 20,000 under the Customs Act, 1962. The Bench found no deliberate intent to misdeclare the goods, as the appellant intended to import only Aluminium scrap. The appeal was partly allowed, and the assisting counsel&#039;s efforts were noted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750943</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>