<?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 1465 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795579</link>
    <description>Transferable DFIA licences remained valid because allegations against the exporter were unestablished, the demand against that exporter was dropped, and the licences were not cancelled. A bona fide transferee-importer could therefore not be treated as having used fraudulent or irregular licences. The customs duty demand lacked a substantiated substantive charge, and the extended limitation period could not be invoked. The demand and extended-period invocation were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 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=913361" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 1465 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795579</link>
      <description>Transferable DFIA licences remained valid because allegations against the exporter were unestablished, the demand against that exporter was dropped, and the licences were not cancelled. A bona fide transferee-importer could therefore not be treated as having used fraudulent or irregular licences. The customs duty demand lacked a substantiated substantive charge, and the extended limitation period could not be invoked. The demand and extended-period invocation were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795579</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>