<?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>Customs classification and misdeclaration: tribunal upheld duty demand, confiscation, and penalties for deliberate false import description.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99273</link>
    <description>Imported goods declared as apatite calcium phosphate were held classifiable under CTI 2835 26 90, because Chapter 25 covers only natural products in crude form or products processed merely mechanically or physically, while the evidence showed calcination and chemical additions. Documentary material, including supplier emails and the importer&#039;s own conduct in seeking removal of calcination references, established deliberate misdescription; the differential duty with interest was therefore upheld. Since the goods did not match the Bills of Entry, confiscation under section 111(m) and redemption fine were sustained. Intentional misclassification to evade duty attracted penalty under section 114A, and the penalties on the director and manager were also upheld for manipulating and assisting in false customs documentation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 08:16:36 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 08:16:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=898931" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Customs classification and misdeclaration: tribunal upheld duty demand, confiscation, and penalties for deliberate false import description.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99273</link>
      <description>Imported goods declared as apatite calcium phosphate were held classifiable under CTI 2835 26 90, because Chapter 25 covers only natural products in crude form or products processed merely mechanically or physically, while the evidence showed calcination and chemical additions. Documentary material, including supplier emails and the importer&#039;s own conduct in seeking removal of calcination references, established deliberate misdescription; the differential duty with interest was therefore upheld. Since the goods did not match the Bills of Entry, confiscation under section 111(m) and redemption fine were sustained. Intentional misclassification to evade duty attracted penalty under section 114A, and the penalties on the director and manager were also upheld for manipulating and assisting in false customs documentation.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 08:16:36 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99273</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>