https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772917 Article 24 of AIFTA was not directly enforceable in municipal courts unless incorporated into domestic law, so it could not be used to invalidate customs show cause notices or exclude customs jurisdiction. The Customs Tariff (DOGPTA) Rules, 2009 and the exemption notification implemented the trade preference regime, but they did not import Article 24 or its dispute mechanism. Section 28 of the Customs Act therefore remained available to investigate and issue notices on prima facie material of suppression, misstatement or fraud, and the later insertion of Section 28DA did not imply a lack of earlier jurisdiction. en-us Fri, 13 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jun 2025 08:38:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772917 Article 24 of AIFTA was not directly enforceable in municipal courts unless incorporated into domestic law, so it could not be used to invalidate customs show cause notices or exclude customs jurisdiction. The Customs Tariff (DOGPTA) Rules, 2009 and the exemption notification implemented the trade preference regime, but they did not import Article 24 or its dispute mechanism. Section 28 of the Customs Act therefore remained available to investigate and issue notices on prima facie material of suppression, misstatement or fraud, and the later insertion of Section 28DA did not imply a lack of earlier jurisdiction. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 13 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772917