Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Deliberate misclassification of optical network terminals as subscriber end equipment, coupled with an ineligible exemption claim, justified invocation of the extended limitation period for customs-duty recovery. Inconsistent tariff classifications for technically similar goods, continued use of the disputed classification after provisional reassessment, and equipment approval identifying the goods as GPON ONT supported an inference of intentional duty evasion. The importer's oral assertion that the classification issue had not previously been raised did not rebut those circumstances. The Tribunal upheld the customs-duty demand and dismissed the appeals.
Deliberate misclassification of optical network terminals as subscriber end equipment, coupled with an ineligible exemption claim, justified invocation of the extended limitation period for customs-duty recovery. Inconsistent tariff classifications for technically similar goods, continued use of the disputed classification after provisional reassessment, and equipment approval identifying the goods as GPON ONT supported an inference of intentional duty evasion. The importer's oral assertion that the classification issue had not previously been raised did not rebut those circumstances. The Tribunal upheld the customs-duty demand and dismissed the appeals.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.