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...
The CESTAT held that the appellant satisfied all conditions prescribed for the export of brown basmati rice under the Foreign Trade Policy and that FSSAI standards do not mandatorily apply to such exports unless explicitly stipulated. The Revenue failed to produce statutory provisions or authoritative notifications to establish the applicability of FSSAI norms to the exported goods. Additionally, no evidence was presented showing rejection of the consignment by the importing country or diversion of goods. The reliance on a non-specialized laboratory report was insufficient to prove misdeclaration. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the adjudicating authority's order, quashing demands of confiscation, redemption fine, duty, and penalties, and allowed the appeal.
The CESTAT held that the appellant satisfied all conditions prescribed for the export of brown basmati rice under the Foreign Trade Policy and that FSSAI standards do not mandatorily apply to such exports unless explicitly stipulated. The Revenue failed to produce statutory provisions or authoritative notifications to establish the applicability of FSSAI norms to the exported goods. Additionally, no evidence was presented showing rejection of the consignment by the importing country or diversion of goods. The reliance on a non-specialized laboratory report was insufficient to prove misdeclaration. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the adjudicating authority's order, quashing demands of confiscation, redemption fine, duty, and penalties, and allowed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
