<?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>2008 (2) TMI 771 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123650</link>
    <description>A foreign supplier lacked locus standi to challenge refusal of re-export permission for goods imported through an Indian importer. The Tribunal noted that the consignment had been declared as dyed processed cotton fabrics, but inspection and investigation suggested corduroy fabrics, affecting tariff classification and the claimed duty-free benefit. It also relied on the importer&#039;s earlier admission of mis-declaration, the later retraction, and the pending departmental investigation and show cause proceedings. In these circumstances, the appeal was treated as an attempt to delay inquiry and adjudication, and no appellate interference was granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Sep 2012 17:53:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160614" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (2) TMI 771 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123650</link>
      <description>A foreign supplier lacked locus standi to challenge refusal of re-export permission for goods imported through an Indian importer. The Tribunal noted that the consignment had been declared as dyed processed cotton fabrics, but inspection and investigation suggested corduroy fabrics, affecting tariff classification and the claimed duty-free benefit. It also relied on the importer&#039;s earlier admission of mis-declaration, the later retraction, and the pending departmental investigation and show cause proceedings. In these circumstances, the appeal was treated as an attempt to delay inquiry and adjudication, and no appellate interference was granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123650</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>