<?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>2025 (12) TMI 249 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782709</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the appellant-importer was entitled to exemption from basic customs duty under the relevant FTA notification based on Certificates of Origin issued by the designated Thai authority. It found the certificates to be genuine and duly verified by Indian Customs at the time of import, with no allegation of forgery or concrete evidence to discredit their contents. The later, vague communication from Thai authorities about non-compliance with an unspecified time-frame could not retrospectively negate preferential treatment. As there was no statutory obligation on the importer, prior to s.28DA, to verify value addition or origin beyond producing valid certificates, denial of benefit was unsustainable. The impugned orders were set aside and the appeal allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2025 08:57:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=868850" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 249 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782709</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the appellant-importer was entitled to exemption from basic customs duty under the relevant FTA notification based on Certificates of Origin issued by the designated Thai authority. It found the certificates to be genuine and duly verified by Indian Customs at the time of import, with no allegation of forgery or concrete evidence to discredit their contents. The later, vague communication from Thai authorities about non-compliance with an unspecified time-frame could not retrospectively negate preferential treatment. As there was no statutory obligation on the importer, prior to s.28DA, to verify value addition or origin beyond producing valid certificates, denial of benefit was unsustainable. The impugned orders were set aside and the appeal allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782709</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>