https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325114 Sampling was upheld where it was drawn in the presence of the importer's representative, who accepted the manner of sampling, and the sample was treated as representative of consignments from the same importer, commodity and vessel. The test results were consistent on two occasions and showed ash content above the prescribed limit, so the exemption condition was not satisfied. The absence of separate correspondence before the second test did not vitiate the result when the CHA had been informed. On that basis, denial of exemption under Customs Notification No. 21/2002 was justified and the assessment was sustained. en-us Tue, 23 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Nov 2016 11:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325114 Sampling was upheld where it was drawn in the presence of the importer's representative, who accepted the manner of sampling, and the sample was treated as representative of consignments from the same importer, commodity and vessel. The test results were consistent on two occasions and showed ash content above the prescribed limit, so the exemption condition was not satisfied. The absence of separate correspondence before the second test did not vitiate the result when the CHA had been informed. On that basis, denial of exemption under Customs Notification No. 21/2002 was justified and the assessment was sustained. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 23 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325114