<?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>Importer&#039;s Zinc Valuation Upheld; Tribunal Rejects Department&#039;s Classification Claim Due to Lack of Evidence.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=75906</link>
    <description>Valuation of imported goods - Unwrought / Unrefined Zinc - enhancement of value - rejection of transaction value - The importer declared the goods as &quot;Unwrought/Unrefined Zinc&quot; but the test report revealed that the imported goods were actually &quot;Zinc Dross.&quot; - The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the importer, holding that the assessing officer lacked valid reasons to reject transaction values and had not followed proper procedures. - The Appellate Tribunal found no evidence to support the Department&#039;s claim that the zinc content exceeded 92%, necessary to classify the goods as &quot;Zinc Dross.&quot;</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2024 06:59:15 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2024 06:59:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=747701" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Importer&#039;s Zinc Valuation Upheld; Tribunal Rejects Department&#039;s Classification Claim Due to Lack of Evidence.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=75906</link>
      <description>Valuation of imported goods - Unwrought / Unrefined Zinc - enhancement of value - rejection of transaction value - The importer declared the goods as &quot;Unwrought/Unrefined Zinc&quot; but the test report revealed that the imported goods were actually &quot;Zinc Dross.&quot; - The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the importer, holding that the assessing officer lacked valid reasons to reject transaction values and had not followed proper procedures. - The Appellate Tribunal found no evidence to support the Department&#039;s claim that the zinc content exceeded 92%, necessary to classify the goods as &quot;Zinc Dross.&quot;</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2024 06:59:15 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=75906</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>