<?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 (10) TMI 990 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760391</link>
    <description>The HC dismissed an appeal challenging CESTAT&#039;s order setting aside warehousing operation suspension and penalties. CESTAT found no breach of public bonded warehouse license conditions, supported by factual evidence that goods were discharged through high-pressure pipeline with proper customs permissions and supervision. The appellant failed to establish substantial questions of law required under Section 130 of Customs Act. HC upheld CESTAT&#039;s findings that no license violations occurred, goods were not liable for confiscation, and consequently no penalties under Sections 117 and 112(b)(ii) were warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Oct 2024 08:13:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=774686" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (10) TMI 990 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760391</link>
      <description>The HC dismissed an appeal challenging CESTAT&#039;s order setting aside warehousing operation suspension and penalties. CESTAT found no breach of public bonded warehouse license conditions, supported by factual evidence that goods were discharged through high-pressure pipeline with proper customs permissions and supervision. The appellant failed to establish substantial questions of law required under Section 130 of Customs Act. HC upheld CESTAT&#039;s findings that no license violations occurred, goods were not liable for confiscation, and consequently no penalties under Sections 117 and 112(b)(ii) were warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760391</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>