<?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>2005 (9) TMI 190 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54784</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the denial of duty exemption, confirmed duty demand, and imposed interest under Section 28AB of the Customs Act on goods imported under a fraudulently created license. The goods were confiscated with an option for redemption on payment of a fine. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the goods should not be confiscated due to the lack of involvement in the fraud, stating that fraud nullifies all actions stemming from it. The appellants were held liable for duty payment and confiscation of goods imported under the fake license. The Tribunal also set aside the order for levying interest under Section 28AB as the provision was not applicable at the time of import.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:31:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93261" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 190 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54784</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the denial of duty exemption, confirmed duty demand, and imposed interest under Section 28AB of the Customs Act on goods imported under a fraudulently created license. The goods were confiscated with an option for redemption on payment of a fine. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the goods should not be confiscated due to the lack of involvement in the fraud, stating that fraud nullifies all actions stemming from it. The appellants were held liable for duty payment and confiscation of goods imported under the fake license. The Tribunal also set aside the order for levying interest under Section 28AB as the provision was not applicable at the time of import.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54784</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>