<?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>Preferential customs duty exemption under ASEAN-India FTA Certificates of Origin dispute; s.28(9) extension needn&#039;t be communicated; writ denied.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95160</link>
    <description>Delayed adjudication under s. 28(9) of the Customs Act was challenged on the ground that the extension order for deciding the SCN was not communicated, in a dispute over denial of preferential duty exemption based on Certificates of Origin under the ASEAN-India FTA. The Court held that, unlike s. 110(2), s. 28 does not mandate prior intimation or communication of an extension; while intimation is desirable, non-communication is not fatal. Given the failure to file any substantive reply on merits to rebut the verification email questioning the Certificates of Origin, no ground for writ interference was made out; the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appeal with time to file it. - HC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2025 08:02:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2025 08:02:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=872412" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Preferential customs duty exemption under ASEAN-India FTA Certificates of Origin dispute; s.28(9) extension needn&#039;t be communicated; writ denied.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95160</link>
      <description>Delayed adjudication under s. 28(9) of the Customs Act was challenged on the ground that the extension order for deciding the SCN was not communicated, in a dispute over denial of preferential duty exemption based on Certificates of Origin under the ASEAN-India FTA. The Court held that, unlike s. 110(2), s. 28 does not mandate prior intimation or communication of an extension; while intimation is desirable, non-communication is not fatal. Given the failure to file any substantive reply on merits to rebut the verification email questioning the Certificates of Origin, no ground for writ interference was made out; the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appeal with time to file it. - HC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2025 08:02:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95160</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>