<?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>2023 (3) TMI 1623 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467882</link>
    <description>Urea imported through a State Trading Enterprise on a high seas sale basis was held not to be an impermissible import merely because the Indian buyer was the importer of record. The Tribunal applied earlier orders and treated the issue as no longer res integra, finding that such imports were in accordance with the prevailing import policy. As the transaction was not unlawful on that basis, the ingredients for penalty under the Customs Act were not established. The penalty under Section 112(a)(i) was therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2026 14:39:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=895725" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (3) TMI 1623 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467882</link>
      <description>Urea imported through a State Trading Enterprise on a high seas sale basis was held not to be an impermissible import merely because the Indian buyer was the importer of record. The Tribunal applied earlier orders and treated the issue as no longer res integra, finding that such imports were in accordance with the prevailing import policy. As the transaction was not unlawful on that basis, the ingredients for penalty under the Customs Act were not established. The penalty under Section 112(a)(i) was therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467882</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>