<?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>Worn clothing imports seized for license violation; fines reduced for substantial compliance.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=81191</link>
    <description>Imported old and used worn clothing, though completely fumigated, was considered a restricted item. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods u/s 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 due to non-compliance with licensing requirements. However, considering the negligible scope for ascertainment, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine to 10% of the ascertained value and penalty to 5% to serve the ends of justice. The appellate authority&#039;s imposition of redemption fine and penalty on the respondents was found sufficient. The Revenue&#039;s appeal against the order was dismissed as no infirmity was found.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Sep 2024 08:11:26 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Sep 2024 08:11:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=767350" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Worn clothing imports seized for license violation; fines reduced for substantial compliance.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=81191</link>
      <description>Imported old and used worn clothing, though completely fumigated, was considered a restricted item. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods u/s 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 due to non-compliance with licensing requirements. However, considering the negligible scope for ascertainment, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine to 10% of the ascertained value and penalty to 5% to serve the ends of justice. The appellate authority&#039;s imposition of redemption fine and penalty on the respondents was found sufficient. The Revenue&#039;s appeal against the order was dismissed as no infirmity was found.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Sep 2024 08:11:26 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=81191</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>