<?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>2026 (7) TMI 1469 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795583</link>
    <description>Advance rulings under the Customs Act bind only the applicant and jurisdictional authorities, but their legal principle has persuasive value in identical classification disputes unless facts differ or the law changes. The article states that an advance ruling classified dehydrated dark, small seedless raisins under Tariff Heading 08062010, subject to Plant Quarantine Authority or FSSAI certification. The relevant certificates supported that classification, while classification as currants was based only on an unproduced DRI investigation report without laboratory testing or cogent evidence. It concludes that reclassification, denial of exemption, differential duty, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 08:36:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=913357" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 1469 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795583</link>
      <description>Advance rulings under the Customs Act bind only the applicant and jurisdictional authorities, but their legal principle has persuasive value in identical classification disputes unless facts differ or the law changes. The article states that an advance ruling classified dehydrated dark, small seedless raisins under Tariff Heading 08062010, subject to Plant Quarantine Authority or FSSAI certification. The relevant certificates supported that classification, while classification as currants was based only on an unproduced DRI investigation report without laboratory testing or cogent evidence. It concludes that reclassification, denial of exemption, differential duty, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795583</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>