<?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 (4) TMI 539 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789470</link>
    <description>Import of Technical Grade Urea through a State Trading Enterprise on high seas sale basis was treated as permissible where the import policy used the term &quot;through&quot; rather than &quot;by&quot; State Trading Enterprises. The permission from the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers was read consistently with that policy, and no condition prohibiting high seas sale was found. As the goods were imported through the State Trading Enterprise and cleared on payment of duty, confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and penalty under Section 112(a)(i) were not sustainable. CESTAT accordingly allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned orders.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2026 08:09:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=895908" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 539 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789470</link>
      <description>Import of Technical Grade Urea through a State Trading Enterprise on high seas sale basis was treated as permissible where the import policy used the term &quot;through&quot; rather than &quot;by&quot; State Trading Enterprises. The permission from the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers was read consistently with that policy, and no condition prohibiting high seas sale was found. As the goods were imported through the State Trading Enterprise and cleared on payment of duty, confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and penalty under Section 112(a)(i) were not sustainable. CESTAT accordingly allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned orders.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789470</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>