<?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 (2) TMI 1033 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786885</link>
    <description>Limitation for filing an appeal under the Customs Act runs from communication of the order, not dispatch, so an appeal received within that period is in time; a later rejection without notice offends natural justice. Second-hand digital multifunction print and copying machines were freely importable in September 2009 under the then Foreign Trade Policy, because the restriction came only later and operated prospectively. On that footing, confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) was unsustainable since the goods were not prohibited and no misdeclaration was proved beyond a valuation estimate. Once confiscation failed, redemption fine and penalty under Sections 125 and 112(a) also could not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Feb 2026 09:29:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=887404" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (2) TMI 1033 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786885</link>
      <description>Limitation for filing an appeal under the Customs Act runs from communication of the order, not dispatch, so an appeal received within that period is in time; a later rejection without notice offends natural justice. Second-hand digital multifunction print and copying machines were freely importable in September 2009 under the then Foreign Trade Policy, because the restriction came only later and operated prospectively. On that footing, confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) was unsustainable since the goods were not prohibited and no misdeclaration was proved beyond a valuation estimate. Once confiscation failed, redemption fine and penalty under Sections 125 and 112(a) also could not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786885</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>