<?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>2014 (2) TMI 782 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244188</link>
    <description>For TMT bars under Chapter 72, tariff classification is governed by the express Chapter Note 1(f), which defines other alloy steel by specified element thresholds. Because the imported goods were found to contain vanadium at 0.1% or more, they fell within other alloy steel under CTH 72.28, and BIS standard IS 7598:1990 could not override the tariff note. The notification issue turned on Serial No. 202A of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus, which covered goods of Chapter 72 and provided countervailing duty relief; on that basis, the exemption was available. The classification challenge failed, but the exemption claim was accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Aug 2014 10:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346535" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (2) TMI 782 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244188</link>
      <description>For TMT bars under Chapter 72, tariff classification is governed by the express Chapter Note 1(f), which defines other alloy steel by specified element thresholds. Because the imported goods were found to contain vanadium at 0.1% or more, they fell within other alloy steel under CTH 72.28, and BIS standard IS 7598:1990 could not override the tariff note. The notification issue turned on Serial No. 202A of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus, which covered goods of Chapter 72 and provided countervailing duty relief; on that basis, the exemption was available. The classification challenge failed, but the exemption claim was accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244188</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>