https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785851 Invalidation of a certificate of origin under AIFTA was treated as revocation rather than a verification under the Operational Certification Procedures, but the revocation lacked basis in the Rules of Origin and Procedures and cannot substitute for an Article 16 verification; consequence: the revocation was unlawful. Recovery of duty foregone was initiated without following the notice and inquiry procedure mandated by section 28DA and rule 7 was applied with excessive reach; consequence: duty recovery and penalties are invalidated. Cumulative origin and legitimate use of alternative movement documentation were recognised, and because connected certificates were not properly scrutinised or the importer placed on notice, the impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed. en-us Mon, 19 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Feb 2026 08:20:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785851 Invalidation of a certificate of origin under AIFTA was treated as revocation rather than a verification under the Operational Certification Procedures, but the revocation lacked basis in the Rules of Origin and Procedures and cannot substitute for an Article 16 verification; consequence: the revocation was unlawful. Recovery of duty foregone was initiated without following the notice and inquiry procedure mandated by section 28DA and rule 7 was applied with excessive reach; consequence: duty recovery and penalties are invalidated. Cumulative origin and legitimate use of alternative movement documentation were recognised, and because connected certificates were not properly scrutinised or the importer placed on notice, the impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 19 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785851