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 dominant issue was whether an imported implantable intracranial 'stent' was classifiable as an 'artificial part of the body' under CTI 9021 39 00 or under the residual implanted appliances entry CTI 9021 90 90. Applying the scope of Heading 9021 and the anatomical replacement test, the authority held that the device functions therapeutically as a scaffold to retain embolization coils and achieve occlusion, without replicating or substituting any anatomical vessel or aneurysm wall segment. Since it is not a prosthetic substitute and the competing entries must be compared at the same hierarchical level, classification under 'artificial parts' was rejected and the product was classified under CTI 9021 90 90. - AAR
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
