Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Page of 4780
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
261 to 280 of 95596 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT AHMEDABAD addressed the issue of classification of imported goods (Thiram) by the appellant. The revenue sought to classify the goods under heading 3812 1000, while the appellant classified them under 3808 9230. The tribunal noted that 3808 9230 specifically covers 'Thiram,' whereas 3812 1000 is a general heading for prepared rubber accelerators. The show cause notice lacked specific reasons for the classification under 3812. As the goods were a single compound, not a mixture, classifying them under 3812 and imposing anti-dumping duty was deemed unjustified. The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the goods did not fall under the anti-dumping duty notification due to differences in methyl molecules. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
CESTAT AHMEDABAD addressed the issue of classification of imported goods (Thiram) by the appellant. The revenue sought to classify the goods under heading 3812 1000, while the appellant classified them under 3808 9230. The tribunal noted that 3808 9230 specifically covers 'Thiram,' whereas 3812 1000 is a general heading for prepared rubber accelerators. The show cause notice lacked specific reasons for the classification under 3812. As the goods were a single compound, not a mixture, classifying them under 3812 and imposing anti-dumping duty was deemed unjustified. The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the goods did not fall under the anti-dumping duty notification due to differences in methyl molecules. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4780
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
