<?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 (8) TMI 659 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796786</link>
    <description>SAFTA preferential-duty treatment cannot be denied solely because the six-digit tariff classification on a country-of-origin certificate differs from the import classification where origin is undisputed, goods remain within the exemption scope, and no prescribed ground for denial exists. Origin rules require verification and inter-governmental consultation in disputes, while minor certificate discrepancies do not automatically invalidate the certificate. The Tribunal found the exemption denial and consequential duty, interest, penalty, confiscation and redemption fine unsustainable. Declared transaction value also cannot be rejected solely on NIDB comparisons for allegedly branded goods without evidence undermining the invoice, establishing branding or infringement, or considering relevant value factors. Imports must receive SAFTA treatment at the declared value, and the bank guarantee must be released.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2026 08:46:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=916377" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (8) TMI 659 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796786</link>
      <description>SAFTA preferential-duty treatment cannot be denied solely because the six-digit tariff classification on a country-of-origin certificate differs from the import classification where origin is undisputed, goods remain within the exemption scope, and no prescribed ground for denial exists. Origin rules require verification and inter-governmental consultation in disputes, while minor certificate discrepancies do not automatically invalidate the certificate. The Tribunal found the exemption denial and consequential duty, interest, penalty, confiscation and redemption fine unsustainable. Declared transaction value also cannot be rejected solely on NIDB comparisons for allegedly branded goods without evidence undermining the invoice, establishing branding or infringement, or considering relevant value factors. Imports must receive SAFTA treatment at the declared value, and the bank guarantee must be released.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796786</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>