Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
Customs-controlled container movement now extends to DP World facilities, subject to segregation, inspections, reconciliation, and EXIM cargo priority...
CESTAT held that synthetic casting tapes are properly classifiable under CTH 30059040 rather than CTH 9021. The Tribunal relied on precedent from Johnson & Johnson case which established that Deltalite Casting Tapes fall under sub-heading 3005.10. The Tribunal determined that the goods were not devices/instruments/appliances that would warrant classification under Heading 90.21. Regarding limitation period, CESTAT upheld the invocation of extended period under Section 28(4) of Customs Act, finding that appellant could not claim ignorance of relevant precedential orders from 1999-2000 when filing Bills of Entry. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.
CESTAT held that synthetic casting tapes are properly classifiable under CTH 30059040 rather than CTH 9021. The Tribunal relied on precedent from Johnson & Johnson case which established that Deltalite Casting Tapes fall under sub-heading 3005.10. The Tribunal determined that the goods were not devices/instruments/appliances that would warrant classification under Heading 90.21. Regarding limitation period, CESTAT upheld the invocation of extended period under Section 28(4) of Customs Act, finding that appellant could not claim ignorance of relevant precedential orders from 1999-2000 when filing Bills of Entry. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
