All appeals dismissed; finding of anti-competitive bid-rigging upheld under Sections 3(3)(c), 3(3)(d) read with 3(1); cease-and-desist and total-turno...
Central Government notifies 11.541-hectare Special Economic Zone for semiconductor manufacturing; Approval Committee constituted, ICD status effective...
Government appoints National Customs Targeting Centre-Passenger director as customs officer with powers under PNR Regulations, 2022 and Sections 30A, ...
Prima facie, the HC observed that prior authoritative decisions have settled the classification of glucometers in favour of the appellant's position, and that Respondent No. 3 failed to consider those precedents when issuing the impugned order dated 02.01.2025. The court noted that an advance ruling under Section 28I is binding only on the applicant and the customs authorities under Section 28J, resulting in potential competitive disadvantage to the appellant if required to discharge a higher duty. Balancing the appellant's prejudice against revenue interests given a differential duty of 2.5%, the HC granted interim relief and stayed the operation of the impugned order until final disposal of the appeal.
Prima facie, the HC observed that prior authoritative decisions have settled the classification of glucometers in favour of the appellant's position, and that Respondent No. 3 failed to consider those precedents when issuing the impugned order dated 02.01.2025. The court noted that an advance ruling under Section 28I is binding only on the applicant and the customs authorities under Section 28J, resulting in potential competitive disadvantage to the appellant if required to discharge a higher duty. Balancing the appellant's prejudice against revenue interests given a differential duty of 2.5%, the HC granted interim relief and stayed the operation of the impugned order until final disposal of the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.