<?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 (4) TMI 1049 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358938</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal upheld the classification of goods in the specific bill of entry, setting aside the demand for duty on earlier consignments and the confiscation and penalties imposed on the appellant. The dispute centered on the reclassification of imported &#039;sew on metal buttons&#039; under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, with arguments regarding the distinction between &#039;sew buttons&#039; and &#039;snap buttons,&#039; admissibility of trade catalogues, and justification for altering the classification of previous consignments. The judgment emphasized the policy framework for classification and concluded that penalties and confiscation were unjustified in this case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2019 14:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=517542" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 1049 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358938</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal upheld the classification of goods in the specific bill of entry, setting aside the demand for duty on earlier consignments and the confiscation and penalties imposed on the appellant. The dispute centered on the reclassification of imported &#039;sew on metal buttons&#039; under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, with arguments regarding the distinction between &#039;sew buttons&#039; and &#039;snap buttons,&#039; admissibility of trade catalogues, and justification for altering the classification of previous consignments. The judgment emphasized the policy framework for classification and concluded that penalties and confiscation were unjustified in this case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358938</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>