https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781745 CESTAT set aside the order denying exemption under N/N. 25/2022 to the appellant-importer. It held that the Bills of Entry clearly stated the imported goods and their use in manufacture of PCB/PCBA for mobile phones, and there was no allegation of non-compliance with the procedure under rule 5 of the 2017 Rules. The misdescription in the rule 4 declaration, mentioning "smart phones" instead of PCB/PCBA, was treated as an honest, satisfactorily explained mistake. The appellant was held entitled to the exemption; the differential duty, interest and penalty were quashed and the appeal allowed. en-us Wed, 15 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Nov 2025 08:42:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781745 CESTAT set aside the order denying exemption under N/N. 25/2022 to the appellant-importer. It held that the Bills of Entry clearly stated the imported goods and their use in manufacture of PCB/PCBA for mobile phones, and there was no allegation of non-compliance with the procedure under rule 5 of the 2017 Rules. The misdescription in the rule 4 declaration, mentioning "smart phones" instead of PCB/PCBA, was treated as an honest, satisfactorily explained mistake. The appellant was held entitled to the exemption; the differential duty, interest and penalty were quashed and the appeal allowed. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 15 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781745