<?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>Import of Raw Petroleum Coke Allowed Despite Sulphur Limit Under DGFT License Conditions</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90881</link>
    <description>The CESTAT upheld the respondent&#039;s entitlement to import Raw Petroleum Coke (RPC) despite the sulphur content exceeding 3.5%, as the DGFT license explicitly permitted import of 37,777 M.T. of RPC subject to IS 17049 conditions. The DGFT clarified that the sulphur content limitation was not applicable to the respondent because the RPC was used as feedstock for producing Calcined Petroleum Coke (CPC). Consequently, the respondents complied with the license conditions, and the seizure of the goods was unwarranted. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue&#039;s appeal and dismissed it, allowing the release of the seized imported goods.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2025 08:28:12 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2025 08:28:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=838572" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Import of Raw Petroleum Coke Allowed Despite Sulphur Limit Under DGFT License Conditions</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90881</link>
      <description>The CESTAT upheld the respondent&#039;s entitlement to import Raw Petroleum Coke (RPC) despite the sulphur content exceeding 3.5%, as the DGFT license explicitly permitted import of 37,777 M.T. of RPC subject to IS 17049 conditions. The DGFT clarified that the sulphur content limitation was not applicable to the respondent because the RPC was used as feedstock for producing Calcined Petroleum Coke (CPC). Consequently, the respondents complied with the license conditions, and the seizure of the goods was unwarranted. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue&#039;s appeal and dismissed it, allowing the release of the seized imported goods.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2025 08:28:12 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90881</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>