<?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>Imported goods misclassified as Biofos MCP under tariff heading 2835 2810 instead of 2309 9090. Deliberate attempt to misclassify goods for lower duty rate.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78102</link>
    <description>CESTAT AHMEDABAD held that Biofos Mono Calcium Phosphate (BMP) is classifiable u/s 2835 2610, not u/s 2309 9090. The deliberate attempt to misclassify was rejected as the fluorine content was not proven to be intentional. Specific description u/r 3(a) prevails over general description. Referring to a Supreme Court case, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of specific classification. The appellants&#039; claim of intentional fluorine presence was unsubstantiated, indicating a deliberate misclassification for duty rate benefits. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jun 2024 08:03:44 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Jun 2024 08:03:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=755201" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Imported goods misclassified as Biofos MCP under tariff heading 2835 2810 instead of 2309 9090. Deliberate attempt to misclassify goods for lower duty rate.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78102</link>
      <description>CESTAT AHMEDABAD held that Biofos Mono Calcium Phosphate (BMP) is classifiable u/s 2835 2610, not u/s 2309 9090. The deliberate attempt to misclassify was rejected as the fluorine content was not proven to be intentional. Specific description u/r 3(a) prevails over general description. Referring to a Supreme Court case, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of specific classification. The appellants&#039; claim of intentional fluorine presence was unsubstantiated, indicating a deliberate misclassification for duty rate benefits. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jun 2024 08:03:44 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78102</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>