<?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 (7) TMI 188 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52118</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act was held unsustainable where the imported goods had already been provisionally released and were not available for confiscation. The Tribunal applied the settled principle that, in the absence of goods for confiscation, redemption fine may be considered but penal action cannot be imposed in place of confiscation. On that basis, the penalty was set aside and the appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Oct 2010 13:22:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90596" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (7) TMI 188 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52118</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act was held unsustainable where the imported goods had already been provisionally released and were not available for confiscation. The Tribunal applied the settled principle that, in the absence of goods for confiscation, redemption fine may be considered but penal action cannot be imposed in place of confiscation. On that basis, the penalty was set aside and the appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52118</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>