<?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 224 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51700</link>
    <description>The tribunal set aside the confiscation and penalty imposed on the importer and others as the evidence was insufficient to establish the appellant&#039;s liability for penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The tribunal emphasized the importance of substantial evidence to establish liability in customs cases, highlighting the burden of proof on the department to link individuals to alleged offenses for penalties to be imposed under the Customs Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2010 17:19:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90178" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (9) TMI 224 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51700</link>
      <description>The tribunal set aside the confiscation and penalty imposed on the importer and others as the evidence was insufficient to establish the appellant&#039;s liability for penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The tribunal emphasized the importance of substantial evidence to establish liability in customs cases, highlighting the burden of proof on the department to link individuals to alleged offenses for penalties to be imposed under the Customs Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51700</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>