<?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 (7) TMI 391 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755171</link>
    <description>Export under LUT requires a clear documentary nexus between the goods cleared under ARE-1s and the goods reflected in the shipping bills and allied export records. Here, the Bombay HC found material discrepancies between the descriptions in the ARE-1s, shipping bills, mate receipts and forwarder documents, and held that the petitioner failed to reliably correlate the cleared goods with the third-party exporter&#039;s goods. The certificate relied on to explain the mismatch did not satisfactorily reconcile the records. On that factual basis, the challenge failed and the consequential duty demand, interest and penalty were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 07 Jul 2024 18:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=759294" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (7) TMI 391 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755171</link>
      <description>Export under LUT requires a clear documentary nexus between the goods cleared under ARE-1s and the goods reflected in the shipping bills and allied export records. Here, the Bombay HC found material discrepancies between the descriptions in the ARE-1s, shipping bills, mate receipts and forwarder documents, and held that the petitioner failed to reliably correlate the cleared goods with the third-party exporter&#039;s goods. The certificate relied on to explain the mismatch did not satisfactorily reconcile the records. On that factual basis, the challenge failed and the consequential duty demand, interest and penalty were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755171</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>