Customs valuation must use comparable contemporary imports, while confiscation fines and penalties require proportionate recalculation on reassessed v...
Depositor-protection proceedings prevail over corporate insolvency, while liquidators may recover chit receivables using copies of seized company reco...
Intermediary service classification fails where overseas admission facilitation is supplied independently, preserving export treatment and small-provi...
Satellite transponder bandwidth is telecommunication, not Business Support Service; foreign non-telegraph providers triggered no service tax liability...
Commitment proceedings gain extended timelines, structured defect refiling, and automatic resumption of inquiry after the adjusted completion period e...
Centralised assessment transfer becomes unwarranted once the searched person's assessment is complete, requiring restoration to the appropriate charge...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
