https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783178 The CESTAT New Delhi dismissed the rectification of mistake application filed by the appellant. The appellant alleged that the Tribunal had misunderstood the Textile Committee's subsequent test reports as being based on destroyed samples and had failed to consider a second test report. The Tribunal held that the records (RUD 23) clearly showed both the original and additional test reports related to the same sample received on 08.07.2016, not to any second set sent on 01.09.2016. It further reiterated that HS classification is a quasi-judicial assessment function of customs authorities, not experts. Finding no error, much less an apparent error on record, the application was rejected. en-us Tue, 09 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783178 The CESTAT New Delhi dismissed the rectification of mistake application filed by the appellant. The appellant alleged that the Tribunal had misunderstood the Textile Committee's subsequent test reports as being based on destroyed samples and had failed to consider a second test report. The Tribunal held that the records (RUD 23) clearly showed both the original and additional test reports related to the same sample received on 08.07.2016, not to any second set sent on 01.09.2016. It further reiterated that HS classification is a quasi-judicial assessment function of customs authorities, not experts. Finding no error, much less an apparent error on record, the application was rejected. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 09 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783178