https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440393 CESTAT Mumbai held that the Revenue could not displace the importer's declared tariff classification for stainless steel tube fittings without proving the applicability of the alternative residual entry by proper evidence. The lower authorities had rejected the declared heading without examining the tariff description against the goods and without support from visual inspection or import documents. In classification disputes, the burden rests on the Revenue to justify the competing classification when departing from the importer's claim, and a residual heading cannot be applied merely on rejection of the declared description. The reclassification was therefore not legally sustainable. en-us Fri, 14 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Jul 2023 08:12:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440393 CESTAT Mumbai held that the Revenue could not displace the importer's declared tariff classification for stainless steel tube fittings without proving the applicability of the alternative residual entry by proper evidence. The lower authorities had rejected the declared heading without examining the tariff description against the goods and without support from visual inspection or import documents. In classification disputes, the burden rests on the Revenue to justify the competing classification when departing from the importer's claim, and a residual heading cannot be applied merely on rejection of the declared description. The reclassification was therefore not legally sustainable. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 14 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440393