<?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>Concessional CVD for cement turns on intended retail sale, not printed RSP or packaging, while substituted valuation and extended limitation failed.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100432</link>
    <description>Imported cement qualified for concessional CVD under Clause 1C because the decisive test was whether it was intended for retail sale, not merely whether it was packed in 50 kg bags or bore a printed RSP. The department had no evidence of actual retail sale, and supply only to industrial and institutional consumers supported the benefit. Reassessment by substituting a contemporaneous RSP was rejected because no proper valuation exercise under customs law was shown and the dispute was not one of transaction value. The extended limitation also failed, as assessed Bills of Entry had been scrutinised by officers and no wilful suppression or misstatement was proved, so duty, interest and penalty could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2026 08:37:37 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2026 08:37:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=905314" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Concessional CVD for cement turns on intended retail sale, not printed RSP or packaging, while substituted valuation and extended limitation failed.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100432</link>
      <description>Imported cement qualified for concessional CVD under Clause 1C because the decisive test was whether it was intended for retail sale, not merely whether it was packed in 50 kg bags or bore a printed RSP. The department had no evidence of actual retail sale, and supply only to industrial and institutional consumers supported the benefit. Reassessment by substituting a contemporaneous RSP was rejected because no proper valuation exercise under customs law was shown and the dispute was not one of transaction value. The extended limitation also failed, as assessed Bills of Entry had been scrutinised by officers and no wilful suppression or misstatement was proved, so duty, interest and penalty could not stand.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2026 08:37:37 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100432</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>