Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the imported goods, being knee wrap, ankle wrap, insoles and similar products made of textile materials, were classifiable under Chapter 90 as orthopedic appliances or whether the matter required remand for expert opinion on their nature and function.
Analysis: The dispute turned on the applicability of Chapter 90 notes governing orthopedic appliances and the exclusion of products deriving their property solely from elasticity. In the absence of technical evidence, the nature of the goods and whether they satisfied the conditions of Note 6 to Chapter 90 could not be conclusively determined. The Tribunal therefore found it necessary to draw samples and obtain an opinion from a recognised institution before deciding the proper classification.
Conclusion: The issue was not finally decided on merits and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after obtaining expert opinion.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent that the classification dispute was sent back for reconsideration on an evidentiary basis, with all substantive questions kept open.
Ratio Decidendi: Where tariff classification of technical goods depends on whether they satisfy statutory chapter notes and their nature cannot be determined reliably without specialised evidence, expert opinion may be necessary before a final classification is made.