https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752630 CESTAT Kolkata set aside demands for differential anti-dumping duty and customs duty against importers of flax yarn. The tribunal found the adjudicating order invalid due to procedural violations under Section 28(9) regarding time limits and extension requirements. Evidence supporting undervaluation allegations, including suspicious emails and letters with inconsistent dates, was deemed fabricated and unreliable. The tribunal held that genuine invoices from manufacturers could not be rejected based on third-party allegations or format differences. Demands were also barred by limitation periods. Penalties on both corporate entities and individual director were quashed as underlying duty demands were unsustainable. en-us Thu, 09 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 May 2024 22:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752630 CESTAT Kolkata set aside demands for differential anti-dumping duty and customs duty against importers of flax yarn. The tribunal found the adjudicating order invalid due to procedural violations under Section 28(9) regarding time limits and extension requirements. Evidence supporting undervaluation allegations, including suspicious emails and letters with inconsistent dates, was deemed fabricated and unreliable. The tribunal held that genuine invoices from manufacturers could not be rejected based on third-party allegations or format differences. Demands were also barred by limitation periods. Penalties on both corporate entities and individual director were quashed as underlying duty demands were unsustainable. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 09 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752630