<?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>Imported women&#039;s knitted scarves and shawls classification dispute: Textile Committee report upheld; confiscation maintained, but redemption fine and penalty reduced</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95267</link>
    <description>The dominant issue was classification of imported women&#039;s knitted scarves/shawls; relying on the Textile Committee&#039;s expert report, and in the absence of any cogent rebuttal or proof of comparable clearances supported by bills of entry and contrary expert reports, the declared classification was rejected and the Commissioner&#039;s classification was affirmed. The ancillary issue concerned re-determination of value and quantum of redemption fine/penalty; since duty was specific (per piece/per sq. m.), valuation was held immaterial to duty liability, but the redemption fine and penalty were reduced on considerations of hardship while maintaining confiscation consequences. The appeal was partly allowed only to reduce fine and penalty. - CESTAT</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Dec 2025 07:49:17 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Dec 2025 07:49:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=873210" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Imported women&#039;s knitted scarves and shawls classification dispute: Textile Committee report upheld; confiscation maintained, but redemption fine and penalty reduced</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95267</link>
      <description>The dominant issue was classification of imported women&#039;s knitted scarves/shawls; relying on the Textile Committee&#039;s expert report, and in the absence of any cogent rebuttal or proof of comparable clearances supported by bills of entry and contrary expert reports, the declared classification was rejected and the Commissioner&#039;s classification was affirmed. The ancillary issue concerned re-determination of value and quantum of redemption fine/penalty; since duty was specific (per piece/per sq. m.), valuation was held immaterial to duty liability, but the redemption fine and penalty were reduced on considerations of hardship while maintaining confiscation consequences. The appeal was partly allowed only to reduce fine and penalty. - CESTAT</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Dec 2025 07:49:17 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95267</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>