<?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>2014 (1) TMI 584 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242363</link>
    <description>Rule 21 of the Anti-Dumping Duty Rules bars collection from the importer of any differential anti-dumping duty where the final duty fixed on final findings is higher than the provisional duty already imposed and collected. On that basis, the demand for differential duty and interest was not sustainable for insisting on pre-deposit pending appeal, and the recovery was stayed during the pendency of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Jan 2014 08:12:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=342535" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (1) TMI 584 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242363</link>
      <description>Rule 21 of the Anti-Dumping Duty Rules bars collection from the importer of any differential anti-dumping duty where the final duty fixed on final findings is higher than the provisional duty already imposed and collected. On that basis, the demand for differential duty and interest was not sustainable for insisting on pre-deposit pending appeal, and the recovery was stayed during the pendency of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242363</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>