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...
CESTAT allowed appeal concerning classification dispute of imported Aluminium Foil under Advance Authorization Scheme. Appellant imported raw material (Aluminium Foil 50 MIC +/-10%) under multiple authorizations, completed export obligations, and obtained Export Obligation Discharge Certificates (EODCs) from DGFT for all but one authorization. Following SC precedent in Titan Medical Systems, CESTAT held that Customs authorities cannot deny duty exemption under notifications post-EODC issuance. If violations were suspected, matter should have been referred to licensing authority rather than demanding duty. Tribunal confirmed appellant's entitlement to benefits under Notification 18/2015-Cus, rejecting customs authorities' reclassification-based duty demand.
CESTAT allowed appeal concerning classification dispute of imported Aluminium Foil under Advance Authorization Scheme. Appellant imported raw material (Aluminium Foil 50 MIC +/-10%) under multiple authorizations, completed export obligations, and obtained Export Obligation Discharge Certificates (EODCs) from DGFT for all but one authorization. Following SC precedent in Titan Medical Systems, CESTAT held that Customs authorities cannot deny duty exemption under notifications post-EODC issuance. If violations were suspected, matter should have been referred to licensing authority rather than demanding duty. Tribunal confirmed appellant's entitlement to benefits under Notification 18/2015-Cus, rejecting customs authorities' reclassification-based duty demand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
