<?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>2021 (4) TMI 1231 - TRIPURA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407115</link>
    <description>Customs origin verification under the Customs (Administration of Rules of Origin under Trade Agreements) Rules, 2020 is explained as a case where no specific deficiency was communicated to the importer and the dispute concerned continued withholding of preferential duty clearance. On that factual footing, the verification was treated as closer to random origin verification than non-furnishing of required information. The note states that goods should not be kept from release indefinitely on insistence upon a bank guarantee where an indemnity bond can secure the differential duty, while the revenue&#039;s right to complete verification and recover any shortfall remains protected. Clearance was therefore to be allowed against an indemnity bond, with the importer free to contest the assessment in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Jan 2022 15:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=643116" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (4) TMI 1231 - TRIPURA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407115</link>
      <description>Customs origin verification under the Customs (Administration of Rules of Origin under Trade Agreements) Rules, 2020 is explained as a case where no specific deficiency was communicated to the importer and the dispute concerned continued withholding of preferential duty clearance. On that factual footing, the verification was treated as closer to random origin verification than non-furnishing of required information. The note states that goods should not be kept from release indefinitely on insistence upon a bank guarantee where an indemnity bond can secure the differential duty, while the revenue&#039;s right to complete verification and recover any shortfall remains protected. Clearance was therefore to be allowed against an indemnity bond, with the importer free to contest the assessment in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407115</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>