<?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>Concessional rate of basic customs duty: appellate order set aside and 50 appeals remanded for fresh consideration.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96807</link>
    <description>Concessional rate of basic customs duty reassessment was challenged on grounds that ICES-derived information used by the appellate authority was not disclosed to the importer, breaching natural justice; consequence: impugned order set aside for failure to furnish material and opportunity. The absence of a separate speaking order when re-assessment findings were applied across multiple imports rendered the appellate exercise inappropriate; consequence: appellate treatment declared collateral adjudication and unreliable. Confiscation and penalty powers were referenced but not permitted to validate the defective appellate process; consequence: all 50 appeals restored to first appellate authority for fresh consideration on merit and maintainability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2026 09:03:32 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2026 09:03:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=885917" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Concessional rate of basic customs duty: appellate order set aside and 50 appeals remanded for fresh consideration.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96807</link>
      <description>Concessional rate of basic customs duty reassessment was challenged on grounds that ICES-derived information used by the appellate authority was not disclosed to the importer, breaching natural justice; consequence: impugned order set aside for failure to furnish material and opportunity. The absence of a separate speaking order when re-assessment findings were applied across multiple imports rendered the appellate exercise inappropriate; consequence: appellate treatment declared collateral adjudication and unreliable. Confiscation and penalty powers were referenced but not permitted to validate the defective appellate process; consequence: all 50 appeals restored to first appellate authority for fresh consideration on merit and maintainability.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2026 09:03:32 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96807</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>