Courier transshipment of imported goods via named carrier to air cargo stations renewed until 30.01.2026; exemption conditional, strict controls apply...
Insurer's investment gains and investment write-downs face Section 263 revision; enquiry upheld, Rule 5(b)(ii) lapse sustained, late corrigendum quash...
The dominant issue was whether an importer could claim customs duty exemption under an earlier notification for import of gold dore bars when the DGFT import licence stated that imports were "subject to" a later notification prescribing duty. The Tribunal held that the licence condition only subjected the import to the later notification and did not bar availing any other applicable exemption; hence, the adjudicating authority's "if and only if" reading was untenable. Relying on the principle that customs authorities cannot deny exemption by questioning an uncancelled DGFT licence, it held duty recovery could arise only if the licence was cancelled by DGFT. Consequently, the duty demand, penalty, and redemption fine were set aside and the appeal was allowed. - CESTAT
The dominant issue was whether an importer could claim customs duty exemption under an earlier notification for import of gold dore bars when the DGFT import licence stated that imports were "subject to" a later notification prescribing duty. The Tribunal held that the licence condition only subjected the import to the later notification and did not bar availing any other applicable exemption; hence, the adjudicating authority's "if and only if" reading was untenable. Relying on the principle that customs authorities cannot deny exemption by questioning an uncancelled DGFT licence, it held duty recovery could arise only if the licence was cancelled by DGFT. Consequently, the duty demand, penalty, and redemption fine were set aside and the appeal was allowed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.