<?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 restores AIFTA exemption, quashes s.125 redemption fine and s.28 demand for exceeding de novo jurisdiction</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94956</link>
    <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order denying exemption under AIFTA and imposing redemption fine under s.125 of the Customs Act, 1962. It held that the adjudicating authority, in de novo proceedings, exceeded its jurisdiction by fastening redemption fine when the original proceedings had not ordered redemption on payment of fine, reiterating that an appellant cannot be placed in a worse position for exercising appellate rights. The Tribunal found no allegation or finding that the goods did not originate in Thailand, nor any challenge to the authenticity or validity of the certificates of origin, rendering denial of exemption and consequent recovery under s.28 unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2025 12:15:59 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2025 12:15:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=870798" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appeal restores AIFTA exemption, quashes s.125 redemption fine and s.28 demand for exceeding de novo jurisdiction</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94956</link>
      <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order denying exemption under AIFTA and imposing redemption fine under s.125 of the Customs Act, 1962. It held that the adjudicating authority, in de novo proceedings, exceeded its jurisdiction by fastening redemption fine when the original proceedings had not ordered redemption on payment of fine, reiterating that an appellant cannot be placed in a worse position for exercising appellate rights. The Tribunal found no allegation or finding that the goods did not originate in Thailand, nor any challenge to the authenticity or validity of the certificates of origin, rendering denial of exemption and consequent recovery under s.28 unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2025 12:15:59 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94956</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>