<?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>Preferential duty exemption under SAFTA sustained; selective retesting and extended limitation were both rejected on the facts.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99325</link>
    <description>Preferential duty exemption under SAFTA was upheld where the certificates of origin, later verified by Bangladesh authorities, were confirmed as correct and could not be disregarded on a unilateral assumption about the origin of the goods. The Tribunal also rejected selective retesting and extrapolation of a few later laboratory results to all consignments, finding the method legally untenable and inconsistent with the original reports. It further held that the extended period of limitation was unavailable because the import documents had been disclosed at clearance and no suppression, wilful misstatement or collusion was proved. The objection that recovery proceedings were invalid for want of a departmental appeal against self-assessed bills of entry was also rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 07:19:13 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 07:19:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=899169" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Preferential duty exemption under SAFTA sustained; selective retesting and extended limitation were both rejected on the facts.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99325</link>
      <description>Preferential duty exemption under SAFTA was upheld where the certificates of origin, later verified by Bangladesh authorities, were confirmed as correct and could not be disregarded on a unilateral assumption about the origin of the goods. The Tribunal also rejected selective retesting and extrapolation of a few later laboratory results to all consignments, finding the method legally untenable and inconsistent with the original reports. It further held that the extended period of limitation was unavailable because the import documents had been disclosed at clearance and no suppression, wilful misstatement or collusion was proved. The objection that recovery proceedings were invalid for want of a departmental appeal against self-assessed bills of entry was also rejected.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 07:19:13 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99325</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>