Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
International cargo transhipment through Indian ports continues with Customs-controlled storage, re-export safeguards, and coordinated multi-station m...
Polypropylene leno bags were held not classifiable as textile goods under Heading 6305 33 00 because the appellant failed to show that the plastic strips used in weaving satisfied the conditions for treatment as synthetic textile under Section XI Note 1(g) read with Heading 6305. The Court reiterated that there is no estoppel against claiming the correct tariff classification, but that principle does not relieve the importer of proving that the product answers the textile entry. Applying the common parlance test and relying on prior precedent, the Court found the goods were known in the market as plastic sacks, not textile sacks, and left their classification under Heading 3923 2900 undisturbed.
Polypropylene leno bags were held not classifiable as textile goods under Heading 6305 33 00 because the appellant failed to show that the plastic strips used in weaving satisfied the conditions for treatment as synthetic textile under Section XI Note 1(g) read with Heading 6305. The Court reiterated that there is no estoppel against claiming the correct tariff classification, but that principle does not relieve the importer of proving that the product answers the textile entry. Applying the common parlance test and relying on prior precedent, the Court found the goods were known in the market as plastic sacks, not textile sacks, and left their classification under Heading 3923 2900 undisturbed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
