<?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 (3) TMI 1650 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788895</link>
    <description>Customs duty liability under Section 28 of the Customs Act attaches only to a person who answers the statutory description of an importer. A subsequent purchaser of imported cars or motorcycles, who was not involved in importation, does not become liable merely because the goods later came into his possession, and Section 125 does not extend duty recovery against such a person when the owner is known. Ownership of a motor vehicle depends on registration under the Motor Vehicles Act, and a purchaser whose name was not on the registration could not be treated as owner in law. On that basis, differential duty and consequential penalties could not be fastened on the purchasers, and joint and several recovery against them was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2026 08:27:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=893895" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 1650 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788895</link>
      <description>Customs duty liability under Section 28 of the Customs Act attaches only to a person who answers the statutory description of an importer. A subsequent purchaser of imported cars or motorcycles, who was not involved in importation, does not become liable merely because the goods later came into his possession, and Section 125 does not extend duty recovery against such a person when the owner is known. Ownership of a motor vehicle depends on registration under the Motor Vehicles Act, and a purchaser whose name was not on the registration could not be treated as owner in law. On that basis, differential duty and consequential penalties could not be fastened on the purchasers, and joint and several recovery against them was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788895</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>