<?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>2000 (8) TMI 548 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95696</link>
    <description>Classification, confiscation and valuation of imported velvet-like fabrics could not be sustained where the adjudication proceeded on a heading not proposed in the show-cause notice and without proper technical examination. The authority had to base classification on expert textile opinion, and the order was therefore set aside with fresh adjudication directed after due notice and technical determination. Valuation based on allegedly comparable imports and local retail market price was also rejected because comparability was not established; that issue was remanded for reconsideration under the proper customs valuation framework. The finding on excess quantity likewise could not stand and was left for redetermination on remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:16:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132755" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 548 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95696</link>
      <description>Classification, confiscation and valuation of imported velvet-like fabrics could not be sustained where the adjudication proceeded on a heading not proposed in the show-cause notice and without proper technical examination. The authority had to base classification on expert textile opinion, and the order was therefore set aside with fresh adjudication directed after due notice and technical determination. Valuation based on allegedly comparable imports and local retail market price was also rejected because comparability was not established; that issue was remanded for reconsideration under the proper customs valuation framework. The finding on excess quantity likewise could not stand and was left for redetermination on remand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95696</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>