<?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>Importer wins classification dispute over fish protein from decalcified fish scales under advance authorization scheme</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89869</link>
    <description>The HC ruled in favor of the importer regarding classification disputes of fish protein obtained from decalcified fish scales under advance authorization. The court held that mis-description of imported inputs under advance authorization does not affect duty liability when DGFT authorities raised no breach concerns. The assessee imported identical products for years, described as &quot;fish protein&quot; (2012-2016) then &quot;decalcified fish scale&quot; (9 subsequent bills), with Revenue acknowledging no material difference. Since the Tribunal previously set aside differential duty demands for 42 earlier bills involving the same product, demanding differential duty for only 9 later transactions lacked justification. The imports qualified for nil duty under n.....</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2025 18:26:51 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2025 18:26:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=832147" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Importer wins classification dispute over fish protein from decalcified fish scales under advance authorization scheme</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89869</link>
      <description>The HC ruled in favor of the importer regarding classification disputes of fish protein obtained from decalcified fish scales under advance authorization. The court held that mis-description of imported inputs under advance authorization does not affect duty liability when DGFT authorities raised no breach concerns. The assessee imported identical products for years, described as &quot;fish protein&quot; (2012-2016) then &quot;decalcified fish scale&quot; (9 subsequent bills), with Revenue acknowledging no material difference. Since the Tribunal previously set aside differential duty demands for 42 earlier bills involving the same product, demanding differential duty for only 9 later transactions lacked justification. The imports qualified for nil duty under n.....</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2025 18:26:51 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89869</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>