https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244331 Imported yarn classification under the tariff depended on expert test reports: a categorical NITRA report stated the goods were not chenille yarn, while the CRCL report was inconclusive and did not definitively support the departmental case. The conclusive report supporting the declared classification could not be displaced by an equivocal report, so classification as chenille yarn under heading 5606 was not sustained. On that basis, rejection and enhancement of the declared transaction value also lacked foundation, and the reassessment order was upheld against the Revenue. en-us Thu, 26 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 May 2015 18:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244331 Imported yarn classification under the tariff depended on expert test reports: a categorical NITRA report stated the goods were not chenille yarn, while the CRCL report was inconclusive and did not definitively support the departmental case. The conclusive report supporting the declared classification could not be displaced by an equivocal report, so classification as chenille yarn under heading 5606 was not sustained. On that basis, rejection and enhancement of the declared transaction value also lacked foundation, and the reassessment order was upheld against the Revenue. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 26 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244331