<?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>2026 (1) TMI 487 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784731</link>
    <description>Redemption fine imposed under s.125 of the Customs Act for import of a used car in violation of Foreign Trade Policy conditions was held inapplicable because the importer declined redemption and was unwilling to take custody of the seized vehicle, citing its disfigured and potentially non-roadworthy condition; the Tribunal allowed waiver of the redemption fine. Penalty under s.112(a) was legally leviable for improper importation, but the Tribunal accepted that the importer acted without awareness of applicable import laws and had compelling personal circumstances necessitating permanent return to India; the penalty was therefore reduced, and the appeal was partly allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Jan 2026 08:26:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=877373" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 487 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784731</link>
      <description>Redemption fine imposed under s.125 of the Customs Act for import of a used car in violation of Foreign Trade Policy conditions was held inapplicable because the importer declined redemption and was unwilling to take custody of the seized vehicle, citing its disfigured and potentially non-roadworthy condition; the Tribunal allowed waiver of the redemption fine. Penalty under s.112(a) was legally leviable for improper importation, but the Tribunal accepted that the importer acted without awareness of applicable import laws and had compelling personal circumstances necessitating permanent return to India; the penalty was therefore reduced, and the appeal was partly allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784731</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>