<?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>Classification of imported fabric upheld on expert testing; mandatory penalty extended to cover omitted differential duty.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99076</link>
    <description>Imported fabric was classified as polyester cut pile fabric on the basis of the Textile Committee report and the importer&#039;s own manufacturing descriptions showing loops cut to form pile. In the absence of any contrary test report, there was no reason to reject the expert report or require a retest, and the importer had no right to dictate the mode of testing. The reclassification and consequential duty demand on both Bills of Entry were sustained. On penalty, the tribunal held that the mandatory penalty equal to duty under section 114A had been omitted for one Bill of Entry, so the order required modification to extend the penalty to the additional differential duty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2026 10:54:24 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2026 10:54:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=898044" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Classification of imported fabric upheld on expert testing; mandatory penalty extended to cover omitted differential duty.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99076</link>
      <description>Imported fabric was classified as polyester cut pile fabric on the basis of the Textile Committee report and the importer&#039;s own manufacturing descriptions showing loops cut to form pile. In the absence of any contrary test report, there was no reason to reject the expert report or require a retest, and the importer had no right to dictate the mode of testing. The reclassification and consequential duty demand on both Bills of Entry were sustained. On penalty, the tribunal held that the mandatory penalty equal to duty under section 114A had been omitted for one Bill of Entry, so the order required modification to extend the penalty to the additional differential duty.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2026 10:54:24 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99076</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>