<?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>2013 (5) TMI 297 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233712</link>
    <description>Imported goods were classified under Tariff Entry 7208.4010 because physical examination and the Chartered Engineer&#039;s report showed them to be predominantly serviceable H.R. plates. The Tribunal treated actual character and technical evidence as controlling over the importer&#039;s claim that the goods were re-rollable plates under Tariff Entry 7208.9000, especially where the bill of entry described them only as re-rollable plates without declaring thickness or size. On the facts, the classification objection failed. The redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 2 lakhs in view of the limited re-rollable portion, while the penalty was upheld because of misdeclaration and the manner of description and assessment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Jul 2013 12:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=196126" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (5) TMI 297 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233712</link>
      <description>Imported goods were classified under Tariff Entry 7208.4010 because physical examination and the Chartered Engineer&#039;s report showed them to be predominantly serviceable H.R. plates. The Tribunal treated actual character and technical evidence as controlling over the importer&#039;s claim that the goods were re-rollable plates under Tariff Entry 7208.9000, especially where the bill of entry described them only as re-rollable plates without declaring thickness or size. On the facts, the classification objection failed. The redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 2 lakhs in view of the limited re-rollable portion, while the penalty was upheld because of misdeclaration and the manner of description and assessment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233712</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>