<?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>2025 (1) TMI 745 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764681</link>
    <description>Rectification is limited to mistakes apparent from the record and may be used to correct an undisputed factual description, such as the shipper and beneficial owner named in an earlier order. It cannot be used to resolve a debatable issue or to undertake substantive recomputation of anti-dumping duty, as that would exceed rectification jurisdiction. On that basis, the factual typographical errors were corrected, while the request for recomputation of duty was refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Jan 2025 08:17:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=789304" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 745 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764681</link>
      <description>Rectification is limited to mistakes apparent from the record and may be used to correct an undisputed factual description, such as the shipper and beneficial owner named in an earlier order. It cannot be used to resolve a debatable issue or to undertake substantive recomputation of anti-dumping duty, as that would exceed rectification jurisdiction. On that basis, the factual typographical errors were corrected, while the request for recomputation of duty was refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764681</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>