https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410127 An apparent misdescription of the bill of entry in the earlier order was treated as a typographical error on the face of the record, so review was maintainable and the reference was corrected. On customs verification of a certificate of origin, the Court held that Rule 6(1)(b) of the Customs (Administration of Rules of Origin under Trade Agreements) Rules, 2020 applies only where there is a reasoned basis to believe the origin criterion has failed or the importer has supplied insufficient information; absent such material, the exercise falls under Rule 6(1)(c) as a random due-diligence verification. The warehoused goods were therefore directed to be released on an indemnity bond, without insisting on a bank guarantee. en-us Mon, 19 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Jul 2021 13:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410127 An apparent misdescription of the bill of entry in the earlier order was treated as a typographical error on the face of the record, so review was maintainable and the reference was corrected. On customs verification of a certificate of origin, the Court held that Rule 6(1)(b) of the Customs (Administration of Rules of Origin under Trade Agreements) Rules, 2020 applies only where there is a reasoned basis to believe the origin criterion has failed or the importer has supplied insufficient information; absent such material, the exercise falls under Rule 6(1)(c) as a random due-diligence verification. The warehoused goods were therefore directed to be released on an indemnity bond, without insisting on a bank guarantee. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 19 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410127