<?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>2025 (11) TMI 1223 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781755</link>
    <description>CESTAT Chandigarh (AT) held that allegations of mis-declaration of quantity and quality of imported heavy melting scrap were unsustainable. The marginal difference in quantity was attributable to weighment variations, and the importers had opted for first check, declaring the consignment as per documents. The Chartered Engineer&#039;s report confirmed the goods as re-rollable scrap, and there was no evidence that the goods were used as such or that any differential value was paid to the foreign supplier. Consequently, mis-declaration and under-valuation were not established. The appeal was allowed partly by setting aside redemption fine and penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2025 08:42:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=865856" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 1223 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781755</link>
      <description>CESTAT Chandigarh (AT) held that allegations of mis-declaration of quantity and quality of imported heavy melting scrap were unsustainable. The marginal difference in quantity was attributable to weighment variations, and the importers had opted for first check, declaring the consignment as per documents. The Chartered Engineer&#039;s report confirmed the goods as re-rollable scrap, and there was no evidence that the goods were used as such or that any differential value was paid to the foreign supplier. Consequently, mis-declaration and under-valuation were not established. The appeal was allowed partly by setting aside redemption fine and penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781755</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>