<?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>Tribunal Rules Against Retroactive Application of New DFIA Condition, Invalidating Duty Demands on Past Imports.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=74796</link>
    <description>DFIA scheme - exemption from basic customs duty and additional customs duty - introduction of new condition by way of amendment - The tribunal held that, the amendment couldn&#039;t be applied retrospectively to imports cleared before its introduction. Since some of the appellant&#039;s imports fell into this period, the demand for duty and penalties based on the new condition was invalid. - The CESTAT found no evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or deliberate evasion of duty by the appellant. The failure to fulfill the new condition was considered a procedural violation, not a misdeclaration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 10 Feb 2024 07:44:01 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Feb 2024 07:44:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=743171" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Tribunal Rules Against Retroactive Application of New DFIA Condition, Invalidating Duty Demands on Past Imports.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=74796</link>
      <description>DFIA scheme - exemption from basic customs duty and additional customs duty - introduction of new condition by way of amendment - The tribunal held that, the amendment couldn&#039;t be applied retrospectively to imports cleared before its introduction. Since some of the appellant&#039;s imports fell into this period, the demand for duty and penalties based on the new condition was invalid. - The CESTAT found no evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or deliberate evasion of duty by the appellant. The failure to fulfill the new condition was considered a procedural violation, not a misdeclaration.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 10 Feb 2024 07:44:01 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=74796</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>