https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764932 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal in part, ruling that the importer correctly declared goods as Rutile Sand/Rutile with 95%+ Titanium Dioxide content and properly claimed CVD exemption under N/N. 4/2006-CE. The tribunal found no mis-declaration in the Bills of Entry as customs authorities had consistently allowed the exemption from 2007-2012 after examining supporting documents including test certificates. The demand for differential duty with interest using extended limitation period was held unsustainable since the appellant made correct declarations and classifications under Heading 26.14 of Customs Tariff throughout the import period. en-us Tue, 21 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Jan 2025 08:21:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764932 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal in part, ruling that the importer correctly declared goods as Rutile Sand/Rutile with 95%+ Titanium Dioxide content and properly claimed CVD exemption under N/N. 4/2006-CE. The tribunal found no mis-declaration in the Bills of Entry as customs authorities had consistently allowed the exemption from 2007-2012 after examining supporting documents including test certificates. The demand for differential duty with interest using extended limitation period was held unsustainable since the appellant made correct declarations and classifications under Heading 26.14 of Customs Tariff throughout the import period. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 21 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764932