<?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>2021 (10) TMI 251 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413199</link>
    <description>Zircon sand imported from Australia was examined for classification as zirconium ore or zirconium concentrate for CVD exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-C.E. The notification covered ores under Chapter 26 but not concentrates. Applying the Chapter Note, HSN Explanatory Note and Board clarification, the material was treated as ore where foreign matter had not been removed by special treatment; mere crushing, screening, washing, cleaning or drying was insufficient to make it a concentrate. Because the Department drew no samples for expert analysis and the importer produced chemical certificates showing about 65% zirconium oxide content, the goods were held to be zirconium ore. Denial of exemption was therefore unlawful.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2021 08:49:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=657836" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (10) TMI 251 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413199</link>
      <description>Zircon sand imported from Australia was examined for classification as zirconium ore or zirconium concentrate for CVD exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-C.E. The notification covered ores under Chapter 26 but not concentrates. Applying the Chapter Note, HSN Explanatory Note and Board clarification, the material was treated as ore where foreign matter had not been removed by special treatment; mere crushing, screening, washing, cleaning or drying was insufficient to make it a concentrate. Because the Department drew no samples for expert analysis and the importer produced chemical certificates showing about 65% zirconium oxide content, the goods were held to be zirconium ore. Denial of exemption was therefore unlawful.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413199</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>