<?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>Prospective exemption notification bars retrospective customs duty on vessels later converted to coastal run under later notification</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101298</link>
    <description>Notification No. 12/2012-Cus was treated as prospective because its saving clause preserved things done or omitted under the earlier notification, showing no intention of retrospective operation. Customs duty could not be imposed later on vessels already imported into India in 2009 merely because they were subsequently sought to be converted from foreign-going vessel status to coastal run. The HC followed the prior view on the same issue and held that the demand for duty was illegal; the writ petition was allowed and the bank guarantees furnished under interim orders were directed to be discontinued.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2026 08:07:08 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2026 08:07:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=909495" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Prospective exemption notification bars retrospective customs duty on vessels later converted to coastal run under later notification</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101298</link>
      <description>Notification No. 12/2012-Cus was treated as prospective because its saving clause preserved things done or omitted under the earlier notification, showing no intention of retrospective operation. Customs duty could not be imposed later on vessels already imported into India in 2009 merely because they were subsequently sought to be converted from foreign-going vessel status to coastal run. The HC followed the prior view on the same issue and held that the demand for duty was illegal; the writ petition was allowed and the bank guarantees furnished under interim orders were directed to be discontinued.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2026 08:07:08 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101298</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>