<?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 834 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783294</link>
    <description>The Tribunal rejected the appellant-EOU&#039;s challenge to the jurisdiction of DRI officers to issue the show cause notice in a drawback-related matter, holding that such notices are valid. On the substantive dispute concerning valuation and customs duty on exports of high-grade iron ore and fines during 13.06.2008-30.11.2010, the Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority and prior precedents had not applied the principles subsequently laid down by the SC and a HC regarding determination of duty based on weight and iron content (and agreed specifications). Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for de novo adjudication in accordance with those principles.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2025 13:09:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=871249" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 834 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783294</link>
      <description>The Tribunal rejected the appellant-EOU&#039;s challenge to the jurisdiction of DRI officers to issue the show cause notice in a drawback-related matter, holding that such notices are valid. On the substantive dispute concerning valuation and customs duty on exports of high-grade iron ore and fines during 13.06.2008-30.11.2010, the Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority and prior precedents had not applied the principles subsequently laid down by the SC and a HC regarding determination of duty based on weight and iron content (and agreed specifications). Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for de novo adjudication in accordance with those principles.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783294</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>