<?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>Appeal allowed: importer&#039;s country-of-origin certificates accepted; Rs.31,07,086 demand quashed, s.125 fine and ss.114A/114AA penalties set aside</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93531</link>
    <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that the appellant validly availed benefit of N/N.46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011 by presenting four distinct country-of-origin certificates at import. The Tribunal found no conclusive evidence to impugn the COOs, rejected demands founded on conjecture and e-mails, and held that COOs not sent for verification could not be invalidated by extrapolation from other verifications. The demand for differential duty of Rs.31,07,086 with interest was annulled, the goods were held not liable for confiscation, the redemption fine of Rs.3,00,000 under s.125 was set aside, and penalties under ss.114A and 114AA were held unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 25 Oct 2025 09:00:56 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Oct 2025 09:00:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=860116" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appeal allowed: importer&#039;s country-of-origin certificates accepted; Rs.31,07,086 demand quashed, s.125 fine and ss.114A/114AA penalties set aside</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93531</link>
      <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that the appellant validly availed benefit of N/N.46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011 by presenting four distinct country-of-origin certificates at import. The Tribunal found no conclusive evidence to impugn the COOs, rejected demands founded on conjecture and e-mails, and held that COOs not sent for verification could not be invalidated by extrapolation from other verifications. The demand for differential duty of Rs.31,07,086 with interest was annulled, the goods were held not liable for confiscation, the redemption fine of Rs.3,00,000 under s.125 was set aside, and penalties under ss.114A and 114AA were held unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 25 Oct 2025 09:00:56 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93531</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>