<?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 (5) TMI 1155 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770883</link>
    <description>Where a customs adjudication order did not account for amounts already deposited by the petitioner, the matter required reconsideration to reassess differential duty, redemption fine and penalties on the existing record. The High Court directed rectification of the impugned order and remitted the case for fresh adjudication after the petitioner produced the relevant documents before the adjudicating authority. The petitioner&#039;s remedies against the new order were left open.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 May 2025 08:39:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=822425" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 1155 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770883</link>
      <description>Where a customs adjudication order did not account for amounts already deposited by the petitioner, the matter required reconsideration to reassess differential duty, redemption fine and penalties on the existing record. The High Court directed rectification of the impugned order and remitted the case for fresh adjudication after the petitioner produced the relevant documents before the adjudicating authority. The petitioner&#039;s remedies against the new order were left open.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770883</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>