https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777780 The Supreme Court clarified that the CESTAT had proceeded on misclassification, not misdeclaration, and had considered the retraction of the statement relied on in departmental proceedings. On that reading, the tribunal did not accept that the appellant had advised the importer to mis-declare the goods. The High Court's observation in paragraph 6, suggesting that CESTAT had upheld such a finding, was therefore stated to be inaccurate because it did not reflect the tribunal's actual reasoning. en-us Thu, 21 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Sep 2025 08:10:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777780 The Supreme Court clarified that the CESTAT had proceeded on misclassification, not misdeclaration, and had considered the retraction of the statement relied on in departmental proceedings. On that reading, the tribunal did not accept that the appellant had advised the importer to mis-declare the goods. The High Court's observation in paragraph 6, suggesting that CESTAT had upheld such a finding, was therefore stated to be inaccurate because it did not reflect the tribunal's actual reasoning. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 21 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777780