<?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>2026 (4) TMI 1756 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790687</link>
    <description>Imported apatite/calcium phosphate processed by calcination or similar treatment was held outside Chapter 25 and classifiable as calcium phosphate under CTI 2835 26 90, because Chapter 25 applies only to natural products in crude form or those subjected merely to mechanical or physical processes. Documentary evidence, including supplier correspondence and the appellant&#039;s own request to remove calcination references, supported the finding of misdescription. On that basis, the goods were liable to confiscation and the importing entity was liable to penalty for deliberate misdeclaration and attempted duty concession. The email trail also showed knowing participation by the Director and Manager, so the penalties imposed on them were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 08:16:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=899000" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 1756 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790687</link>
      <description>Imported apatite/calcium phosphate processed by calcination or similar treatment was held outside Chapter 25 and classifiable as calcium phosphate under CTI 2835 26 90, because Chapter 25 applies only to natural products in crude form or those subjected merely to mechanical or physical processes. Documentary evidence, including supplier correspondence and the appellant&#039;s own request to remove calcination references, supported the finding of misdescription. On that basis, the goods were liable to confiscation and the importing entity was liable to penalty for deliberate misdeclaration and attempted duty concession. The email trail also showed knowing participation by the Director and Manager, so the penalties imposed on them were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790687</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>