<?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>2023 (6) TMI 325 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438751</link>
    <description>Classification of imported low aromatic white spirit under CTH 27101920 depended on Note 4 of Chapter 27 and the chemical test results. The CRCL, Kolkata report did not affirmatively establish the prescribed distillation parameters, including the 90% by volume distillation requirement at 210 C, so the material on record did not support classification under CTH 27101920. On the import policy issue, the importer&#039;s licence covered a Class B petroleum product, and the alleged excess was not treated as sufficient to justify confiscation in the facts noted. The departmental appeal failed and the order under challenge was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Jun 2023 16:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=715890" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (6) TMI 325 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438751</link>
      <description>Classification of imported low aromatic white spirit under CTH 27101920 depended on Note 4 of Chapter 27 and the chemical test results. The CRCL, Kolkata report did not affirmatively establish the prescribed distillation parameters, including the 90% by volume distillation requirement at 210 C, so the material on record did not support classification under CTH 27101920. On the import policy issue, the importer&#039;s licence covered a Class B petroleum product, and the alleged excess was not treated as sufficient to justify confiscation in the facts noted. The departmental appeal failed and the order under challenge was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438751</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>