<?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>Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent adjudication.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=102314</link>
    <description>Section 127C(5) requires the Settlement Commission to provide a settlement applicant an opportunity to address a jurisdictional Commissioner&#039;s report before relying on it to enhance customs duty liability. Non-supply of the report breached that statutory requirement and principles of natural justice, requiring the settlement order to be quashed and remanded for fresh consideration. Separate settlement applications arising from the same seized imported goods were intrinsically connected and required a consistent approach. The differing treatment of the Revenue report lacked a discernible basis; therefore, the related subsequent order was also quashed and remanded, with all merits left open.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2026 08:20:38 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2026 08:20:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=914910" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent adjudication.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=102314</link>
      <description>Section 127C(5) requires the Settlement Commission to provide a settlement applicant an opportunity to address a jurisdictional Commissioner&#039;s report before relying on it to enhance customs duty liability. Non-supply of the report breached that statutory requirement and principles of natural justice, requiring the settlement order to be quashed and remanded for fresh consideration. Separate settlement applications arising from the same seized imported goods were intrinsically connected and required a consistent approach. The differing treatment of the Revenue report lacked a discernible basis; therefore, the related subsequent order was also quashed and remanded, with all merits left open.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2026 08:20:38 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=102314</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>