<?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>High Seas Sale of Technical Grade Urea through State Trading Enterprise did not justify confiscation or penalty.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98961</link>
    <description>Import of Technical Grade Urea through a State Trading Enterprise remained compliant with the import policy even after the goods were sold on high seas to the appellant and the appellant filed the Bill of Entry for clearance. The Tribunal followed its earlier rulings that the policy required import through the State Trading Enterprise, not direct import by the end-user, so the appellant&#039;s role in clearance did not make the import unlawful. As the import was not contrary to law, confiscation was unwarranted and the consequential penalty could not survive. The Revenue&#039;s reliance on a different precedent was rejected as factually and legally distinguishable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2026 08:30:26 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2026 08:30:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=897441" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>High Seas Sale of Technical Grade Urea through State Trading Enterprise did not justify confiscation or penalty.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98961</link>
      <description>Import of Technical Grade Urea through a State Trading Enterprise remained compliant with the import policy even after the goods were sold on high seas to the appellant and the appellant filed the Bill of Entry for clearance. The Tribunal followed its earlier rulings that the policy required import through the State Trading Enterprise, not direct import by the end-user, so the appellant&#039;s role in clearance did not make the import unlawful. As the import was not contrary to law, confiscation was unwarranted and the consequential penalty could not survive. The Revenue&#039;s reliance on a different precedent was rejected as factually and legally distinguishable.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2026 08:30:26 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98961</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>