<?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>2025 (10) TMI 74 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779278</link>
    <description>HC held the freight forwarder-found to have arranged airline space, issued an airway bill in the name of a non-existent firm, used forged export documents and failed to obtain KYC-was properly penalized for involvement in illegal export of prohibited goods. The court upheld an existing Rs. 10 lakh penalty as adequate and declined to impose the additional penalty under s.114AA (which would be five times the goods&#039; value). Appeal disposed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Oct 2025 08:30:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=855955" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (10) TMI 74 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779278</link>
      <description>HC held the freight forwarder-found to have arranged airline space, issued an airway bill in the name of a non-existent firm, used forged export documents and failed to obtain KYC-was properly penalized for involvement in illegal export of prohibited goods. The court upheld an existing Rs. 10 lakh penalty as adequate and declined to impose the additional penalty under s.114AA (which would be five times the goods&#039; value). Appeal disposed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779278</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>