<?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>2008 (11) TMI 135 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33082</link>
    <description>A palm oil product obtained through physical refining was classified under Heading 1511 because chemical test reports showed palm oil fractions with significant ester value and did not establish industrial monocarboxylic fatty acids under Heading 3823. The Department&#039;s circular and the test results supported that classification. Since the declared description in the bill of entry was contradicted by chemical examination and the importer&#039;s own analysis was found unreliable, the goods were treated as misdeclared. Confiscation, redemption fine, penalties and the revised value were therefore upheld, and the appeals were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71717" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (11) TMI 135 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33082</link>
      <description>A palm oil product obtained through physical refining was classified under Heading 1511 because chemical test reports showed palm oil fractions with significant ester value and did not establish industrial monocarboxylic fatty acids under Heading 3823. The Department&#039;s circular and the test results supported that classification. Since the declared description in the bill of entry was contradicted by chemical examination and the importer&#039;s own analysis was found unreliable, the goods were treated as misdeclared. Confiscation, redemption fine, penalties and the revised value were therefore upheld, and the appeals were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33082</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>