https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783217 CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal, setting aside denial of AIFTA exemption and the imposition of redemption fine under s.125 Customs Act, 1962. It held that in de novo proceedings the adjudicating authority exceeded its jurisdiction by newly imposing redemption fine when earlier proceedings had not done so, as an appellant cannot be worse off for exercising appellate remedies. On merits, the Tribunal found no evidence that the goods did not originate in Thailand, no challenge to the authenticity or competence of the certificates of origin, and no substantiated mismatch between goods description and certificates. Consequently, recourse to s.28 for duty recovery and denial of exemption was unsustainable. en-us Wed, 17 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Dec 2025 08:56:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783217 CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal, setting aside denial of AIFTA exemption and the imposition of redemption fine under s.125 Customs Act, 1962. It held that in de novo proceedings the adjudicating authority exceeded its jurisdiction by newly imposing redemption fine when earlier proceedings had not done so, as an appellant cannot be worse off for exercising appellate remedies. On merits, the Tribunal found no evidence that the goods did not originate in Thailand, no challenge to the authenticity or competence of the certificates of origin, and no substantiated mismatch between goods description and certificates. Consequently, recourse to s.28 for duty recovery and denial of exemption was unsustainable. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 17 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783217