Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 machines were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 153/86-Cus. as machinery used for the production of a commodity.
Analysis: The exemption was confined to machinery used for the production of a commodity. The machines in question performed only separate intermediate processes in the battery manufacturing line and did not, by themselves, bring a commodity into existence. The complete product emerged only through the combined operation of several other machines, including a machine not covered by the notification. The relevant exemption notification had to be construed strictly, and the description could not be extended by intendment to a series of machines performing individual functions. The distinction between tariff classification and exemption notification was material, and the prior classification-based reasoning did not assist the appellant.
Conclusion: The machines did not qualify for the notification benefit and the claim was rightly rejected; the appeal failed.
Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification granting benefit to machinery used for production of a commodity applies only where the imported machinery itself produces the commodity, and cannot be extended to machines performing only intermediate or individual functions in a larger manufacturing process.