<?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 (7) TMI 182 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53123</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods under Customs Act s.111(m), rejecting the declared value due to evidence of understatement. Penalties under s.114A were imposed on the partners for misdeclaration, but not on the importing firm. The Tribunal recognized potential penalties for both the firm and partners but refrained from additional firm penalties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Jul 2024 10:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91600" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (7) TMI 182 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53123</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods under Customs Act s.111(m), rejecting the declared value due to evidence of understatement. Penalties under s.114A were imposed on the partners for misdeclaration, but not on the importing firm. The Tribunal recognized potential penalties for both the firm and partners but refrained from additional firm penalties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53123</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>