<?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>Unauthorized dairy import through non-notified LCS breaches section 11 and warrants confiscation under s.111(d) Customs Act</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93940</link>
    <description>CESTAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the adjudicating authority&#039;s confiscation and imposition of a redemption fine. The appellant imported dairy/livestock product through an LCS not specified in the Department of Animal Husbandry Notification S.O.2666(E), thereby breaching the statutory port restriction and Section 11 import regime under the Customs Act; initial absence of the requisite veterinary certificate compounded the non-compliance. Although a retrospective veterinary certificate and satisfactory laboratory report were produced, the Tribunal held unauthorized importation through a non-notified port justified confiscation under s.111(d) Customs Act and sustained the penal consequences; the appeal was therefore rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2025 08:37:28 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2025 08:37:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=862902" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Unauthorized dairy import through non-notified LCS breaches section 11 and warrants confiscation under s.111(d) Customs Act</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93940</link>
      <description>CESTAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the adjudicating authority&#039;s confiscation and imposition of a redemption fine. The appellant imported dairy/livestock product through an LCS not specified in the Department of Animal Husbandry Notification S.O.2666(E), thereby breaching the statutory port restriction and Section 11 import regime under the Customs Act; initial absence of the requisite veterinary certificate compounded the non-compliance. Although a retrospective veterinary certificate and satisfactory laboratory report were produced, the Tribunal held unauthorized importation through a non-notified port justified confiscation under s.111(d) Customs Act and sustained the penal consequences; the appeal was therefore rejected.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2025 08:37:28 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93940</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>