<?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>2012 (7) TMI 750 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215252</link>
    <description>Polyester corduroy fabrics were held classifiable as cut corduroy of man-made fibres under CTH 5801 3200 because the test report matched that tariff description and the importer accepted the classification. Re-determination of assessable value was set aside because the customs valuation sequence was not followed, the relied-upon comparable import was non-contemporaneous and already enhanced, and the declared transaction value was not displaced by contrary evidence. Confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were also set aside because the import documents consistently described the goods and no deliberate misdeclaration with intent to evade duty was proved. Duty was to be re-quantified on the upheld classification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2012 18:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=188640" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (7) TMI 750 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215252</link>
      <description>Polyester corduroy fabrics were held classifiable as cut corduroy of man-made fibres under CTH 5801 3200 because the test report matched that tariff description and the importer accepted the classification. Re-determination of assessable value was set aside because the customs valuation sequence was not followed, the relied-upon comparable import was non-contemporaneous and already enhanced, and the declared transaction value was not displaced by contrary evidence. Confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were also set aside because the import documents consistently described the goods and no deliberate misdeclaration with intent to evade duty was proved. Duty was to be re-quantified on the upheld classification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215252</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>