<?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>2003 (6) TMI 89 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51987</link>
    <description>A confiscation notice must be served within the prescribed six-month period; because service occurred after expiry, confiscation and redemption fine could not stand. Duty remained recoverable because the importer failed to meet the EPCG export obligation, but interest was not payable absent express statutory authorization, and penalty also fell once confiscation was removed. Bank guarantees furnished against the customs duty liability were enforceable because they secured that liability. Sick-company protection under section 22 did not bar customs proceedings arising from breach of EPCG conditions, so prior BIFR consent was not required.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2024 16:31:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90465" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (6) TMI 89 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51987</link>
      <description>A confiscation notice must be served within the prescribed six-month period; because service occurred after expiry, confiscation and redemption fine could not stand. Duty remained recoverable because the importer failed to meet the EPCG export obligation, but interest was not payable absent express statutory authorization, and penalty also fell once confiscation was removed. Bank guarantees furnished against the customs duty liability were enforceable because they secured that liability. Sick-company protection under section 22 did not bar customs proceedings arising from breach of EPCG conditions, so prior BIFR consent was not required.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51987</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>