https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94332 CESTAT allowed the appeal filed by the importer and set aside the order of the Pr. Commr. denying exemption under N/N. 25/2002 dated 01.03.2002. The Tribunal held that the imported goods were duly declared in the Bills of Entry as intended for manufacture of PCB/PCBA of mobile phones, and there was no allegation of non-compliance with the procedural requirements under r.5 of the 2017 Rules. The misdescription in the declaration under r.4 as "smart phones" was treated as an honest and satisfactorily explained mistake, not affecting substantive eligibility. Consequently, the denial of exemption, demand of differential customs duty, interest, and penalty were quashed. en-us Thu, 20 Nov 2025 08:42:21 +0530 Thu, 20 Nov 2025 08:42:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94332 CESTAT allowed the appeal filed by the importer and set aside the order of the Pr. Commr. denying exemption under N/N. 25/2002 dated 01.03.2002. The Tribunal held that the imported goods were duly declared in the Bills of Entry as intended for manufacture of PCB/PCBA of mobile phones, and there was no allegation of non-compliance with the procedural requirements under r.5 of the 2017 Rules. The misdescription in the declaration under r.4 as "smart phones" was treated as an honest and satisfactorily explained mistake, not affecting substantive eligibility. Consequently, the denial of exemption, demand of differential customs duty, interest, and penalty were quashed. Highlights Customs Thu, 20 Nov 2025 08:42:21 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94332