Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Import of Alkalised Cocoa Powder from Malaysia - Denied FTA benefit - The Tribunal observed that the benefit was denied solely based on the department's suspicion that the value addition condition was not met. However, no independent verification was conducted to support this allegation. - The Tribunal highlighted that according to Annexure-III of the Customs Tariff, a retroactive check by the customs authorities of India or reference to issuing authorities for verification is required to dispute the certificate of origin. In this case, no such verification was carried out, failing to comply with the requirements of the Free Trade Agreement. Further the CESTAT concluded that no mala fide could be attributed to the appellant. Therefore, the demand was considered time-barred.
Import of Alkalised Cocoa Powder from Malaysia - Denied FTA benefit - The Tribunal observed that the benefit was denied solely based on the department's suspicion that the value addition condition was not met. However, no independent verification was conducted to support this allegation. - The Tribunal highlighted that according to Annexure-III of the Customs Tariff, a retroactive check by the customs authorities of India or reference to issuing authorities for verification is required to dispute the certificate of origin. In this case, no such verification was carried out, failing to comply with the requirements of the Free Trade Agreement. Further the CESTAT concluded that no mala fide could be attributed to the appellant. Therefore, the demand was considered time-barred.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
