HC held that concessional CVD rate under Notification No.4/2006-CE was incorrectly granted. The importer violated key conditions by: (1) purchasing through high-sea sale from third party instead of directly from manufacturer, (2) failing to meet manufacturing mode and capacity requirements, and (3) misusing imported cement for manufacturing ash bricks and local market sales instead of declared institutional/industrial purposes. Mere inclusion of manufacturer details in Bill of Entry and customs clearance were insufficient to justify concessional rate. The court emphasized that high-sea sales through intermediaries negate direct manufacturer purchase requirement. Original order upheld, denying concessional CVD benefit to importer due to multiple notification violations.
HC held that concessional CVD rate under Notification No.4/2006-CE was incorrectly granted. The importer violated key conditions by: (1) purchasing through high-sea sale from third party instead of directly from manufacturer, (2) failing to meet manufacturing mode and capacity requirements, and (3) misusing imported cement for manufacturing ash bricks and local market sales instead of declared institutional/industrial purposes. Mere inclusion of manufacturer details in Bill of Entry and customs clearance were insufficient to justify concessional rate. The court emphasized that high-sea sales through intermediaries negate direct manufacturer purchase requirement. Original order upheld, denying concessional CVD benefit to importer due to multiple notification violations.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
