<?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 (5) TMI 1608 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792406</link>
    <description>Imported LCD panels used in automotive instrument clusters were held classifiable under Heading 9013 because classification depends on the goods as imported, and Chapter 90 specifically covers liquid crystal devices; the general parts headings for motor vehicles could not override that specific tariff description. The article also notes that declared descriptions in Bills of Entry matched the invoices, end-use disclosure was not required under Section 46, and a bona fide classification dispute did not amount to suppression. In the absence of deliberate concealment or wilful misstatement, the extended limitation period under Section 28(4) was not available, and the customs demand failed on merits and limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 May 2026 08:21:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=904200" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 1608 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792406</link>
      <description>Imported LCD panels used in automotive instrument clusters were held classifiable under Heading 9013 because classification depends on the goods as imported, and Chapter 90 specifically covers liquid crystal devices; the general parts headings for motor vehicles could not override that specific tariff description. The article also notes that declared descriptions in Bills of Entry matched the invoices, end-use disclosure was not required under Section 46, and a bona fide classification dispute did not amount to suppression. In the absence of deliberate concealment or wilful misstatement, the extended limitation period under Section 28(4) was not available, and the customs demand failed on merits and limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792406</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>