Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeIndirect TaxesCustoms Can’t Deny ASEAN AIFTA Preferential Duty Benefit Solely for Importer’s Inability...

Customs Can’t Deny ASEAN AIFTA Preferential Duty Benefit Solely for Importer’s Inability to Answer Origin Questionnaire: CESTAT

Indirect Taxes

Published on

By Mariya Paliwala
Customs Can’t Deny ASEAN AIFTA Preferential Duty Benefit Solely for Importer’s Inability to Answer Origin Questionnaire: CESTAT

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The New Delhi Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that preferential customs duty benefits under the ASEAN–India Free Trade Agreement (AIFTA) cannot be denied merely because an importer is unable to furnish upstream manufacturing or raw material details beyond its knowledge, particularly when a valid Certificate of…

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here
Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

GST

Cash Refund Loses Its Character as Tax or Interest; 10% Pre-Deposit Required for GST Appeal: GSTAT Registry

The GST Appellate Tribunal’s Hyderabad Registry has opined that an amount received by a...
GST

Can Disputed ITC Claim Amount to “Fraud or Suppression”? Allahabad HC Stays S. 74 Proceedings Against Samsung Display 

The Allahabad High Court has prima facie questioned the Revenue’s attempt to invoke the...
GST

Bombay High Court Questions 6 Month Limit Under GST Notification for S. 16(5) ITC Benefit

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has raised an important question concerning...
GST

Bombay High Court Examines GST Classification of “Animal or Human Blood Vaccines”; Finds Prima Facie Substance in Challenge to Ambiguous Notification Entry

The Bombay High Court has taken up an important issue concerning the GST classification...

More like this

GST

Cash Refund Loses Its Character as Tax or Interest; 10% Pre-Deposit Required for GST Appeal: GSTAT Registry

The GST Appellate Tribunal’s Hyderabad Registry has opined that an amount received by a...
GST

Can Disputed ITC Claim Amount to “Fraud or Suppression”? Allahabad HC Stays S. 74 Proceedings Against Samsung Display 

The Allahabad High Court has prima facie questioned the Revenue’s attempt to invoke the...
GST

Bombay High Court Questions 6 Month Limit Under GST Notification for S. 16(5) ITC Benefit

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has raised an important question concerning...