<?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>2001 (7) TMI 209 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50762</link>
    <description>Export consignments found to contain old, used, broken or non-working goods instead of the declared prime quartz timing movements were held liable to confiscation for misdeclaration and contravention of the Customs Act read with foreign exchange law. The adjudication was within jurisdiction because the Commissioner could decide confiscation and penalty matters, and the plea of natural justice failed where the missing shipping bill details were otherwise identified and no specific prejudice was shown from refusal of blanket cross-examination. Penalties were sustained against the principal participants, one penalty was reduced as excessive, and the remaining penalties were set aside where the specific allegations were not supported by the evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Dec 2025 16:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89241" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (7) TMI 209 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50762</link>
      <description>Export consignments found to contain old, used, broken or non-working goods instead of the declared prime quartz timing movements were held liable to confiscation for misdeclaration and contravention of the Customs Act read with foreign exchange law. The adjudication was within jurisdiction because the Commissioner could decide confiscation and penalty matters, and the plea of natural justice failed where the missing shipping bill details were otherwise identified and no specific prejudice was shown from refusal of blanket cross-examination. Penalties were sustained against the principal participants, one penalty was reduced as excessive, and the remaining penalties were set aside where the specific allegations were not supported by the evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50762</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>