<?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 (8) TMI 235 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51724</link>
    <description>The Commissioner of Customs confiscated clinical equipment imported by the appellant under Notification No. 64/88-Cus., offering redemption on payment of a fine and imposing a penalty under section 112(A) of the Customs Act. Additionally, duty amount was confirmed, leading to the appeal. The Tribunal upheld the cancellation of exemption certificates, emphasizing importers&#039; continuous liability under Notification No. 64/88 to fulfill conditions, failure of which results in duty payment and confiscation. As the appellant did not challenge the findings or provide evidence, the appeal was rejected based on the binding nature of the central enquiry team&#039;s conclusions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2010 18:05:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90202" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (8) TMI 235 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51724</link>
      <description>The Commissioner of Customs confiscated clinical equipment imported by the appellant under Notification No. 64/88-Cus., offering redemption on payment of a fine and imposing a penalty under section 112(A) of the Customs Act. Additionally, duty amount was confirmed, leading to the appeal. The Tribunal upheld the cancellation of exemption certificates, emphasizing importers&#039; continuous liability under Notification No. 64/88 to fulfill conditions, failure of which results in duty payment and confiscation. As the appellant did not challenge the findings or provide evidence, the appeal was rejected based on the binding nature of the central enquiry team&#039;s conclusions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51724</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>