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 stud tensioning device was eligible for exemption under Notification No. 128/94-Customs as a "material" used in the manufacture of the final product.
Analysis: The notification defined "materials" to mean raw materials, components, intermediates, consumables, computer software and parts required for the manufacture of final goods, together with packing materials. The imported device was a complete machine used to maintain tension on studs and did not form part of the finished goods or fall within any of the specified categories. The fact that it was useful for the manufacturing process, had been treated as essential by the licensing authority, or was supplied along with the product did not determine exemption eligibility. Exemption notifications are to be construed strictly, and doubtful cases do not enlarge the scope of the exemption.
Conclusion: The stud tensioning device was not covered by the definition of "materials" in the notification and the exemption was rightly denied.
Ratio Decidendi: Eligibility to a customs exemption must be tested strictly against the language of the notification, and a machine or device used in manufacture does not qualify as a "material" unless it falls within the categories expressly covered.