<?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>1990 (12) TMI 112 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49105</link>
    <description>The revision application filed by M/s. Chowgule Brothers challenging the penalty imposed under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 for short-landing of polyethylene moulding powder was dismissed. The government found the shortage genuine, attributing responsibility to the Steamer Agent for cargo damage and shortage. The judgment considered pilferage on docks as a possible cause of shortage and emphasized the importance of timely surveys. Compliance with Public Notice 230/86 of Calcutta was assessed, leading to the establishment of short-landing based on evidence presented. Consequently, the penalty imposition was upheld, and the revision application was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Aug 2010 16:04:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87585" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (12) TMI 112 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49105</link>
      <description>The revision application filed by M/s. Chowgule Brothers challenging the penalty imposed under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 for short-landing of polyethylene moulding powder was dismissed. The government found the shortage genuine, attributing responsibility to the Steamer Agent for cargo damage and shortage. The judgment considered pilferage on docks as a possible cause of shortage and emphasized the importance of timely surveys. Compliance with Public Notice 230/86 of Calcutta was assessed, leading to the establishment of short-landing based on evidence presented. Consequently, the penalty imposition was upheld, and the revision application was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49105</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>