<?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>Appeal partly allowed: goods reclassified to CTH 5007 2090; penalties under s.114 and confiscation quashed; drawback denied</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93342</link>
    <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal in part, holding that the lower authority&#039;s re-classification of the exported fabrics to CTH 5007 1000 was unsustainable because test reports did not conclusively establish composition as 100% noil silk; the goods are held classifiable under CTH 5007 2090 as claimed by the appellant. Consequently, findings of mis-declaration and over-valuation were set aside, and penalties under s.114 Customs Act imposed on the named parties were quashed. Confiscation orders were revoked. However, the appellant&#039;s duty drawback claim was denied because the attempted exports did not result in physical export or realisation of foreign exchange from deemed supplies to the SEZ. Appeal disposed accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2025 08:27:08 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2025 08:27:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=858515" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appeal partly allowed: goods reclassified to CTH 5007 2090; penalties under s.114 and confiscation quashed; drawback denied</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93342</link>
      <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal in part, holding that the lower authority&#039;s re-classification of the exported fabrics to CTH 5007 1000 was unsustainable because test reports did not conclusively establish composition as 100% noil silk; the goods are held classifiable under CTH 5007 2090 as claimed by the appellant. Consequently, findings of mis-declaration and over-valuation were set aside, and penalties under s.114 Customs Act imposed on the named parties were quashed. Confiscation orders were revoked. However, the appellant&#039;s duty drawback claim was denied because the attempted exports did not result in physical export or realisation of foreign exchange from deemed supplies to the SEZ. Appeal disposed accordingly.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2025 08:27:08 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93342</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>