<?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>2004 (5) TMI 170 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52990</link>
    <description>Penalty on a Customs House Agent was unsustainable because the goods were not prohibited, there was no recorded finding of connivance, knowledge, or participation, and the residuary penalty could not be used where express penal provisions were invoked for the same conduct. The suspension of the CHA licence was also invalid because the governing regulation did not authorise immediate suspension. Both impugned orders were therefore set aside and the appeals succeeded on the merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Oct 2010 18:36:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91467" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (5) TMI 170 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52990</link>
      <description>Penalty on a Customs House Agent was unsustainable because the goods were not prohibited, there was no recorded finding of connivance, knowledge, or participation, and the residuary penalty could not be used where express penal provisions were invoked for the same conduct. The suspension of the CHA licence was also invalid because the governing regulation did not authorise immediate suspension. Both impugned orders were therefore set aside and the appeals succeeded on the merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52990</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>