Imported menthol-scented sweet supari classification dispute: seizure quashed, release for home consumption subject to duty bond; bank guarantee refus...
CKD/SKD air-conditioner components classifiable with finished units by essential character; prior advance ruling extended three years, FTA benefits po...
Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
The dominant issue was whether an importer could claim customs duty exemption under N/N. 96/2008-Cus despite an import licence condition stating imports were "subject to" N/N. 12/2012-Cus. The Tribunal held that the licence condition merely subjected the import to the 2012 notification and did not expressly prohibit availing any other exemption otherwise available; hence, reading it as an "if and only if" duty-payment mandate was untenable. Relying on the primacy of DGFT instruments under the FTDR framework, it held customs could recover duty under section 28(1) only if the DGFT cancelled the licence. Consequently, the duty demand and penalty under section 112(a)(i) were set aside and the appeal was allowed - CESTAT
The dominant issue was whether an importer could claim customs duty exemption under N/N. 96/2008-Cus despite an import licence condition stating imports were "subject to" N/N. 12/2012-Cus. The Tribunal held that the licence condition merely subjected the import to the 2012 notification and did not expressly prohibit availing any other exemption otherwise available; hence, reading it as an "if and only if" duty-payment mandate was untenable. Relying on the primacy of DGFT instruments under the FTDR framework, it held customs could recover duty under section 28(1) only if the DGFT cancelled the licence. Consequently, the duty demand and penalty under section 112(a)(i) were set aside and the appeal was allowed - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
