Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
CESTAT held that the appeal by the appellant against the designated authority's final findings dated 29.09.2022 and the consequential notification dated 27.12.2022 imposing definitive anti-dumping duty on semi-finished ophthalmic lenses from China PR is maintainable. The court found section 134 of the Finance Act, 2023 (which purportedly amended ss. 9A and 9C of the Customs Tariff Act) has not come into force because no notification under s. 1(2)(b) of the Finance Act has been issued; accordingly, the pre-existing jurisdiction under s. 9C of the Customs Tariff Act remains effective. The appeal is admitted and listed for hearing on 23.09.2025.
CESTAT held that the appeal by the appellant against the designated authority's final findings dated 29.09.2022 and the consequential notification dated 27.12.2022 imposing definitive anti-dumping duty on semi-finished ophthalmic lenses from China PR is maintainable. The court found section 134 of the Finance Act, 2023 (which purportedly amended ss. 9A and 9C of the Customs Tariff Act) has not come into force because no notification under s. 1(2)(b) of the Finance Act has been issued; accordingly, the pre-existing jurisdiction under s. 9C of the Customs Tariff Act remains effective. The appeal is admitted and listed for hearing on 23.09.2025.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
