<?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>2002 (9) TMI 159 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51433</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on the steamer agents under Section 116(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, rejecting their argument that responsibility for pilferage should lie with the transporter. The Tribunal held that the agents were accountable for the goods until handed over to the custodian, based on precedents. Despite shortages noticed during examination, the agents were found liable for the penalty, which was not deemed excessive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:20:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89911" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (9) TMI 159 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51433</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on the steamer agents under Section 116(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, rejecting their argument that responsibility for pilferage should lie with the transporter. The Tribunal held that the agents were accountable for the goods until handed over to the custodian, based on precedents. Despite shortages noticed during examination, the agents were found liable for the penalty, which was not deemed excessive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51433</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>