https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763459 CESTAT Chennai set aside the adjudicating authority's order imposing anti-dumping duty on imported viscose filament yarn. The appellant contended their goods were embroidery threads, not embroidery yarn, and thus excluded from Notification No. 23/2012-Cus. The tribunal held that distinguishing between embroidery yarn and embroidery thread required technical examination and physical scrutiny of goods' characteristics. Since the department failed to provide product literature, test reports, or expert opinions to support their classification change, they did not discharge their burden of proof. The tribunal emphasized that when imposing levy, the onus lies on the department to prove goods are dutiable. Appeal was allowed due to complete absence of evidence supporting the department's allegations. en-us Tue, 17 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Dec 2024 17:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763459 CESTAT Chennai set aside the adjudicating authority's order imposing anti-dumping duty on imported viscose filament yarn. The appellant contended their goods were embroidery threads, not embroidery yarn, and thus excluded from Notification No. 23/2012-Cus. The tribunal held that distinguishing between embroidery yarn and embroidery thread required technical examination and physical scrutiny of goods' characteristics. Since the department failed to provide product literature, test reports, or expert opinions to support their classification change, they did not discharge their burden of proof. The tribunal emphasized that when imposing levy, the onus lies on the department to prove goods are dutiable. Appeal was allowed due to complete absence of evidence supporting the department's allegations. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 17 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763459