<?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 (6) TMI 691 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772578</link>
    <description>CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal challenging denial of concessional customs duty benefits under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus for cocoa powder imports from Malaysia. The department demanded differential duty on eleven Bills of Entry, alleging inadequate regional value content in country of origin certificates. Following precedent in Symphony International, the Tribunal held that the appellant provided valid country of origin certificates and the department failed to verify their authenticity with Malaysian authorities. The department incorrectly relied on outdated reports concerning different entities rather than verifying certificates for the specific 2014-2018 exports. The demand for differential duty, interest, and penalties was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 May 2025 15:44:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=828258" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 691 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772578</link>
      <description>CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal challenging denial of concessional customs duty benefits under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus for cocoa powder imports from Malaysia. The department demanded differential duty on eleven Bills of Entry, alleging inadequate regional value content in country of origin certificates. Following precedent in Symphony International, the Tribunal held that the appellant provided valid country of origin certificates and the department failed to verify their authenticity with Malaysian authorities. The department incorrectly relied on outdated reports concerning different entities rather than verifying certificates for the specific 2014-2018 exports. The demand for differential duty, interest, and penalties was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772578</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>