https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285659 A later Foreign Trade Policy restriction could not be applied retrospectively to an Advance Authorization issued before the amendment, and para 4.1.15 was construed as barring wholly unconnected inputs rather than requiring exact identity between imported replenishment material and export-product input. On the evidence, VGO was accepted as LSFO under the controlling tariff definition, so the export declaration was not proved false. Customs could still examine exemption claims despite an EODC, because the certificate preserved action for fraud, misdeclaration, misrepresentation, or misuse. Once misdeclaration was not established, the extended limitation period and penalty also failed, and the demand, interest, and penalties were set aside. en-us Tue, 04 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Mar 2020 16:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285659 A later Foreign Trade Policy restriction could not be applied retrospectively to an Advance Authorization issued before the amendment, and para 4.1.15 was construed as barring wholly unconnected inputs rather than requiring exact identity between imported replenishment material and export-product input. On the evidence, VGO was accepted as LSFO under the controlling tariff definition, so the export declaration was not proved false. Customs could still examine exemption claims despite an EODC, because the certificate preserved action for fraud, misdeclaration, misrepresentation, or misuse. Once misdeclaration was not established, the extended limitation period and penalty also failed, and the demand, interest, and penalties were set aside. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 04 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285659