<?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>2018 (1) TMI 1225 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354489</link>
    <description>Imported goods were examined against the declared description in the Bill of Entry for eligibility to concessional duty under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. The contemporaneous invoice described the goods as track shoe items, while the Bill of Entry described them as hot rolled sections. The importer&#039;s photographs did not establish that they related to the very goods imported, and the goods were not available for physical verification after clearance. On these facts, the department&#039;s view that the goods were not the declared hot rolled sections was accepted, so the exemption was denied and the classification adopted by the department was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2019 17:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=506589" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 1225 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354489</link>
      <description>Imported goods were examined against the declared description in the Bill of Entry for eligibility to concessional duty under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. The contemporaneous invoice described the goods as track shoe items, while the Bill of Entry described them as hot rolled sections. The importer&#039;s photographs did not establish that they related to the very goods imported, and the goods were not available for physical verification after clearance. On these facts, the department&#039;s view that the goods were not the declared hot rolled sections was accepted, so the exemption was denied and the classification adopted by the department was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354489</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>