<?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>2024 (1) TMI 988 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448589</link>
    <description>CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal challenging denial of concessional customs duty benefit under ASEAN FTA for imported natural cocoa powder from Malaysia. The appellant produced a certificate of origin from Malaysia&#039;s Ministry of International Trade and Industry showing 47% Regional Value Content, exceeding the required 35%. The department denied the benefit based on assumptions from a separate 2014 investigation involving different parties, without verifying the appellant&#039;s certificate or conducting proper investigation with Malaysian authorities. The tribunal held that once valid documentary evidence is produced, the burden shifts to the department to prove its falseness, which they failed to discharge. The demand for differential duty of Rs. 6,44,233 was set aside along with penalty and interest.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Jan 2024 07:56:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=741135" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (1) TMI 988 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448589</link>
      <description>CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal challenging denial of concessional customs duty benefit under ASEAN FTA for imported natural cocoa powder from Malaysia. The appellant produced a certificate of origin from Malaysia&#039;s Ministry of International Trade and Industry showing 47% Regional Value Content, exceeding the required 35%. The department denied the benefit based on assumptions from a separate 2014 investigation involving different parties, without verifying the appellant&#039;s certificate or conducting proper investigation with Malaysian authorities. The tribunal held that once valid documentary evidence is produced, the burden shifts to the department to prove its falseness, which they failed to discharge. The demand for differential duty of Rs. 6,44,233 was set aside along with penalty and interest.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448589</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>