<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2007 (3) TMI 552 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121514</link>
    <description>In a claim for concessional customs duty based on a country of origin certificate, the importer must prima facie establish eligibility through genuine and properly authenticated documents. The certificates produced were found prima facie unsigned by the authorised foreign official, so the importer failed to show entitlement to the exemption, and prior case law cited was treated as inapplicable to preferential duty under the notification. The plea for full waiver of pre-deposit also failed because alleged financial hardship was not supported by evidence. Waiver of the entire pre-deposit was declined, and deposit of 50% of the duty amount was directed, with balance waiver subject to compliance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:35:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=158508" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (3) TMI 552 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121514</link>
      <description>In a claim for concessional customs duty based on a country of origin certificate, the importer must prima facie establish eligibility through genuine and properly authenticated documents. The certificates produced were found prima facie unsigned by the authorised foreign official, so the importer failed to show entitlement to the exemption, and prior case law cited was treated as inapplicable to preferential duty under the notification. The plea for full waiver of pre-deposit also failed because alleged financial hardship was not supported by evidence. Waiver of the entire pre-deposit was declined, and deposit of 50% of the duty amount was directed, with balance waiver subject to compliance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121514</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>