<?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 1081 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783541</link>
    <description>The dominant issue was whether restricted imported &quot;used highly specialized equipment&quot; digital multifunction print/copying machines should be provisionally released despite alleged inconsistent monitoring practices across Custom Houses. Relying on MeitY&#039;s memorandum noting absence of a centralized monitoring mechanism, and applying the binding conditions earlier fixed by the HC and affirmed by the SC in analogous seizure litigation, the Tribunal held that once the importer had already executed a provisional duty bond and furnished a bank guarantee covering the assessable value of the entire consignment, there was no legal basis to withhold release of the remaining units. Consequently, provisional release of 63 units was ordered on the existing bond and bank guarantee, subject to the HC/SC conditions, and the appeal was disposed of.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2025 08:01:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=872384" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 1081 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783541</link>
      <description>The dominant issue was whether restricted imported &quot;used highly specialized equipment&quot; digital multifunction print/copying machines should be provisionally released despite alleged inconsistent monitoring practices across Custom Houses. Relying on MeitY&#039;s memorandum noting absence of a centralized monitoring mechanism, and applying the binding conditions earlier fixed by the HC and affirmed by the SC in analogous seizure litigation, the Tribunal held that once the importer had already executed a provisional duty bond and furnished a bank guarantee covering the assessable value of the entire consignment, there was no legal basis to withhold release of the remaining units. Consequently, provisional release of 63 units was ordered on the existing bond and bank guarantee, subject to the HC/SC conditions, and the appeal was disposed of.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783541</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>