<?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>2019 (12) TMI 1347 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290917</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, M/s. Crystalline Exports Pvt. Ltd., in a classification dispute regarding exported goods under Drawback Code 620638. The Tribunal found that the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 40,000 was unjustified as the goods should have been classified under HS Code 6206 based on expert reports and Public Notice No. 22/2012 criteria. The refusal to draw a sample for classification was deemed arbitrary, and the appellant&#039;s request for examination by the Textile Committee was not accepted. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering expert reports and public notices in such disputes and set aside the impugned order, providing consequential relief to the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2021 10:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=625816" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (12) TMI 1347 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290917</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, M/s. Crystalline Exports Pvt. Ltd., in a classification dispute regarding exported goods under Drawback Code 620638. The Tribunal found that the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 40,000 was unjustified as the goods should have been classified under HS Code 6206 based on expert reports and Public Notice No. 22/2012 criteria. The refusal to draw a sample for classification was deemed arbitrary, and the appellant&#039;s request for examination by the Textile Committee was not accepted. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering expert reports and public notices in such disputes and set aside the impugned order, providing consequential relief to the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290917</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>