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...
Page of 4790
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 95794 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.