<?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>Zircon sand classified as concentrate, exemption denied, duty upheld, cross-examination challenge rejected, and penalty set aside.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100153</link>
    <description>Imported zircon sand was treated as zirconium ore concentrate, not ore, because the classification turned on Chapter Notes, HSN Explanatory Notes and the treatment applied to the mined material, not merely metal content. The exemption under Notification No. 4/2006-CE was therefore unavailable, and the differential duty with interest was upheld under strict construction of exemption notifications. The challenge based on denial of cross-examination of the chemical examiner failed because no prejudice was shown and the report was not the sole basis of decision. Penalty was set aside, as the dispute was interpretational and did not warrant penal action.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2026 07:29:14 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 May 2026 07:29:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=903940" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Zircon sand classified as concentrate, exemption denied, duty upheld, cross-examination challenge rejected, and penalty set aside.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100153</link>
      <description>Imported zircon sand was treated as zirconium ore concentrate, not ore, because the classification turned on Chapter Notes, HSN Explanatory Notes and the treatment applied to the mined material, not merely metal content. The exemption under Notification No. 4/2006-CE was therefore unavailable, and the differential duty with interest was upheld under strict construction of exemption notifications. The challenge based on denial of cross-examination of the chemical examiner failed because no prejudice was shown and the report was not the sole basis of decision. Penalty was set aside, as the dispute was interpretational and did not warrant penal action.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2026 07:29:14 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100153</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>