Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of The core issue pertains to the appropriate customs tariff classification of 'Integrated Circuit Micro Electro Mechanical System Microphones' imported by the appellant. The court held that despite the product's description, its primary identity is that of a microphone enhanced by MEMS technology, rather than an integrated circuit (IC). The court opined that the product's classification is determined by its function as a microphone, not the underlying technology used. While MEMS technology enhances the microphone's capabilities, it does not change its fundamental nature. The court distinguished this case from scenarios where standalone ICs or MEMS sensors are imported, as the product in question is a fully assembled MEMS microphone with integrated components. Consequently, the court ruled that classifying the product under Customs Tariff Heading 8518 as a microphone, rather than under Heading 8542 as an electronic integrated circuit, is appropriate based on the Customs Tariff Act, Harmonized System nomenclature, and relevant explanatory notes.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
