<?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>2008 (9) TMI 370 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35446</link>
    <description>The lower anti-dumping duty rate applied only where the exporter was the specific entity named in the notification; the residuary rate governed imports from any other exporter. As the exporter for the consignment was not the notified exporter, the Tribunal held that the residuary entry applied and the importer was not entitled to the lower notified rate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=74033" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (9) TMI 370 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35446</link>
      <description>The lower anti-dumping duty rate applied only where the exporter was the specific entity named in the notification; the residuary rate governed imports from any other exporter. As the exporter for the consignment was not the notified exporter, the Tribunal held that the residuary entry applied and the importer was not entitled to the lower notified rate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35446</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>