<?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>2017 (12) TMI 105 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351836</link>
    <description>Concentrated Mineral Drops, Elete Electrolyte and Nanosil were held not classifiable under Heading 2106 because the department did not establish, by evidence or test material, that they were food preparations covered by the chapter notes; they were treated as natural mineral-type products rather than residuary food preparations. The declared import values were nevertheless rejected, as documents and correspondence indicated conditional discounts, under-invoicing, and suppression of freight and ex-works charges, and the assessee did not dislodge that material. Redetermination of assessable value was therefore upheld in principle, with only limited recalculation required on the corrected tariff basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2019 16:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=498404" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 105 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351836</link>
      <description>Concentrated Mineral Drops, Elete Electrolyte and Nanosil were held not classifiable under Heading 2106 because the department did not establish, by evidence or test material, that they were food preparations covered by the chapter notes; they were treated as natural mineral-type products rather than residuary food preparations. The declared import values were nevertheless rejected, as documents and correspondence indicated conditional discounts, under-invoicing, and suppression of freight and ex-works charges, and the assessee did not dislodge that material. Redetermination of assessable value was therefore upheld in principle, with only limited recalculation required on the corrected tariff basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351836</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>