<?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 (5) TMI 789 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247862</link>
    <description>API 5L PSL2 X70 and X80 grades were examined under Chapter 72, with Chapter Note 1(f) applied to determine whether the presence of niobium and molybdenum brought the goods within other alloy steel; the surrounding record and established clearance practice supported the importer&#039;s bona fide Heading 7208 claim. The advance authorisations and exemption notifications were treated as covering the imports in the factual setting, as the export-linked scheme contemplated duty-free inputs and the authorisation defect was curable. Alleged misdeclaration was not proved because the entry reflected a classification dispute, not suppression or dishonest statement, so extended limitation, confiscation and penalties were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2016 13:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=356269" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (5) TMI 789 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247862</link>
      <description>API 5L PSL2 X70 and X80 grades were examined under Chapter 72, with Chapter Note 1(f) applied to determine whether the presence of niobium and molybdenum brought the goods within other alloy steel; the surrounding record and established clearance practice supported the importer&#039;s bona fide Heading 7208 claim. The advance authorisations and exemption notifications were treated as covering the imports in the factual setting, as the export-linked scheme contemplated duty-free inputs and the authorisation defect was curable. Alleged misdeclaration was not proved because the entry reflected a classification dispute, not suppression or dishonest statement, so extended limitation, confiscation and penalties were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247862</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>