<?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>Extended limitation and pre-deposit upheld where suppression, misdeclaration, and inconsistent export documentation supported customs action.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99429</link>
    <description>Extended limitation was held applicable because the investigation materials showed wilful misstatement and suppression of facts, including diversion of duty-free imports, use of an incorrect export code, and alleged manipulation of export documentation. The plea that the discrepancy was merely clerical was rejected, and the show cause notice was treated as timely. The requirement of pre-deposit was also upheld as reasonable because the appellants could not rely on parity with an earlier order involving different facts and limited bills of entry. On that basis, the direction to deposit amounts and the dismissal of the appeals for non-compliance were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2026 07:56:55 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 May 2026 07:56:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=899671" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Extended limitation and pre-deposit upheld where suppression, misdeclaration, and inconsistent export documentation supported customs action.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99429</link>
      <description>Extended limitation was held applicable because the investigation materials showed wilful misstatement and suppression of facts, including diversion of duty-free imports, use of an incorrect export code, and alleged manipulation of export documentation. The plea that the discrepancy was merely clerical was rejected, and the show cause notice was treated as timely. The requirement of pre-deposit was also upheld as reasonable because the appellants could not rely on parity with an earlier order involving different facts and limited bills of entry. On that basis, the direction to deposit amounts and the dismissal of the appeals for non-compliance were sustained.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2026 07:56:55 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99429</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>