<?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>Product classification by physical characteristics: cone type speakers held eligible for exemption; extended limitation and penalties rejected.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97067</link>
    <description>Examination report finding that imported speakers were &#039;cone&#039; type based on undisputed parabolic diaphragm shape was accepted, so the original classification as &#039;dome&#039; type was set aside and the importer granted benefit under Notification No.21/2002 Cus. The tribunal held that classification by physical characteristics should ordinarily be resolved by expert sampling, but where the examination report is undisputed after prolonged litigation a remand was unnecessary. Invocation of the extended limitation proviso and imposition of penalties was rejected because no suppression or wilful misstatement was found; mere claim of an exemption does not amount to concealment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:03:18 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:03:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=887470" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Product classification by physical characteristics: cone type speakers held eligible for exemption; extended limitation and penalties rejected.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97067</link>
      <description>Examination report finding that imported speakers were &#039;cone&#039; type based on undisputed parabolic diaphragm shape was accepted, so the original classification as &#039;dome&#039; type was set aside and the importer granted benefit under Notification No.21/2002 Cus. The tribunal held that classification by physical characteristics should ordinarily be resolved by expert sampling, but where the examination report is undisputed after prolonged litigation a remand was unnecessary. Invocation of the extended limitation proviso and imposition of penalties was rejected because no suppression or wilful misstatement was found; mere claim of an exemption does not amount to concealment.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:03:18 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97067</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>