<?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 (3) TMI 277 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766892</link>
    <description>Imported lubricants declared as &quot;not for retail sale&quot; and shown to have been cleared to industrial consumers, directly or through distributors, were treated as outside MRP/RSP-based valuation for CVD purposes under Section 4A, because their import character did not satisfy the retail-sale basis for assessment. The differential CVD demand on that footing was therefore not sustainable. As to SAD, the record required limited factual verification on the extent of payment and the post-import refund or adjustment procedure, so that aspect was remanded for re-examination. The consistent non-retail declaration and absence of evidence of diversion to retail consumers also defeated suppression, and the extended limitation and penalties were held not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2025 14:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=804298" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 277 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766892</link>
      <description>Imported lubricants declared as &quot;not for retail sale&quot; and shown to have been cleared to industrial consumers, directly or through distributors, were treated as outside MRP/RSP-based valuation for CVD purposes under Section 4A, because their import character did not satisfy the retail-sale basis for assessment. The differential CVD demand on that footing was therefore not sustainable. As to SAD, the record required limited factual verification on the extent of payment and the post-import refund or adjustment procedure, so that aspect was remanded for re-examination. The consistent non-retail declaration and absence of evidence of diversion to retail consumers also defeated suppression, and the extended limitation and penalties were held not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766892</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>