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...
Duty Drawback claim denied due to clarificatory Circular No.55/99-Cus retrospectively applicable. Petitioner's exported product, Woolen Readymade Garments, excluded from S.S.NO.62.09 covering only woollen Suits/Trousers/Blazers/Jackets as per Circular. Revisional Authority's order upheld, relying on Karnataka High Court decision in CCE Bangalore Vs. Central Manufacturing Technology Institute, clarifying retrospective nature of clarificatory notifications. Petitioner entitled only to Brand Rate, not Drawback claim for exported garments other than specified categories. Writ Petition dismissed.
Duty Drawback claim denied due to clarificatory Circular No.55/99-Cus retrospectively applicable. Petitioner's exported product, Woolen Readymade Garments, excluded from S.S.NO.62.09 covering only woollen Suits/Trousers/Blazers/Jackets as per Circular. Revisional Authority's order upheld, relying on Karnataka High Court decision in CCE Bangalore Vs. Central Manufacturing Technology Institute, clarifying retrospective nature of clarificatory notifications. Petitioner entitled only to Brand Rate, not Drawback claim for exported garments other than specified categories. Writ Petition dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.