<?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 1346 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359235</link>
    <description>Imported calcium nitrate and mono potassium phosphate were held classifiable as fertilisers under Chapter 31 because the tariff scheme, notes and explanatory material show that goods used and recognised as fertilisers are not excluded merely by being chemically defined compounds. The exclusion for separate chemically defined compounds applies only where the goods are not intended for fertiliser use, and the imported goods fell within the fertiliser control framework. The Revenue circular had limited application and did not displace classification under Chapter 31. The goods were therefore correctly classified under Chapter 31, and the differential duty claim failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2019 15:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=518094" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 1346 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359235</link>
      <description>Imported calcium nitrate and mono potassium phosphate were held classifiable as fertilisers under Chapter 31 because the tariff scheme, notes and explanatory material show that goods used and recognised as fertilisers are not excluded merely by being chemically defined compounds. The exclusion for separate chemically defined compounds applies only where the goods are not intended for fertiliser use, and the imported goods fell within the fertiliser control framework. The Revenue circular had limited application and did not displace classification under Chapter 31. The goods were therefore correctly classified under Chapter 31, and the differential duty claim failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359235</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>