<?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>2024 (9) TMI 9 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757765</link>
    <description>Calcite powder classification depended on whether the customs laboratory report could support reclassification as calcium carbonate under heading 28365000. The report identified the goods as calcium carbonate, but it did not establish the technical parameters required for precipitated calcium carbonate under the relevant Indian Standard, and the laboratory lacked the facility to test calcite powder at the relevant time. Technical literature, product description, and the absence of independent evidence supporting reclassification favoured the importer&#039;s declared heading 25369030. The departmental attempt to rely on the laboratory report and contemporaneous imports was insufficient, so the duty demand, interest, fine, and penalties based on the reclassification could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2024 08:25:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=766137" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 9 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757765</link>
      <description>Calcite powder classification depended on whether the customs laboratory report could support reclassification as calcium carbonate under heading 28365000. The report identified the goods as calcium carbonate, but it did not establish the technical parameters required for precipitated calcium carbonate under the relevant Indian Standard, and the laboratory lacked the facility to test calcite powder at the relevant time. Technical literature, product description, and the absence of independent evidence supporting reclassification favoured the importer&#039;s declared heading 25369030. The departmental attempt to rely on the laboratory report and contemporaneous imports was insufficient, so the duty demand, interest, fine, and penalties based on the reclassification could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757765</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>