<?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>2018 (5) TMI 1145 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360581</link>
    <description>Imported glazed/polished porcelain tiles were found to satisfy the anti-dumping duty exemption conditions because the documentary record, including the import documents, bill of lading, certificate of origin and manufacturer/exporter certificates, established manufacture by the specified manufacturer and export by the specified exporter. Mere internet verification of the brand name embossed on the tiles was treated as insufficient to override the documentary evidence, and the fact that the brand belonged to another group company did not by itself prove non-compliance. The assessee&#039;s officer statement was treated as factual rather than an admission against the assessee. The anti-dumping duty demand, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were not sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2018 12:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=520928" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 1145 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360581</link>
      <description>Imported glazed/polished porcelain tiles were found to satisfy the anti-dumping duty exemption conditions because the documentary record, including the import documents, bill of lading, certificate of origin and manufacturer/exporter certificates, established manufacture by the specified manufacturer and export by the specified exporter. Mere internet verification of the brand name embossed on the tiles was treated as insufficient to override the documentary evidence, and the fact that the brand belonged to another group company did not by itself prove non-compliance. The assessee&#039;s officer statement was treated as factual rather than an admission against the assessee. The anti-dumping duty demand, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were not sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360581</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>