<?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>2026 (2) TMI 43 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785848</link>
    <description>Section 149 of the Customs Act permits amendment of shipping bills after export only where documentary evidence existed at the time of export. Contemporaneous records, including ARE-1 and documentary certifications showing factory clearance and excise-duty treatment, must be examined; absence of port inspection does not negate such evidence. The competent authority was required to consider the records submitted in accordance with the earlier remand direction, rather than confining its review to shipping-bill entries. Rejection of the amendment applications was set aside because it overlooked the available export-time evidence, the relevant policy chronology and retrospective re-description under the FTP. Amendments to the shipping bills were directed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2026 08:20:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=883444" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (2) TMI 43 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785848</link>
      <description>Section 149 of the Customs Act permits amendment of shipping bills after export only where documentary evidence existed at the time of export. Contemporaneous records, including ARE-1 and documentary certifications showing factory clearance and excise-duty treatment, must be examined; absence of port inspection does not negate such evidence. The competent authority was required to consider the records submitted in accordance with the earlier remand direction, rather than confining its review to shipping-bill entries. Rejection of the amendment applications was set aside because it overlooked the available export-time evidence, the relevant policy chronology and retrospective re-description under the FTP. Amendments to the shipping bills were directed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785848</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>