Toy balloon tariff classification: functional heading prevails over residual rubber and festive article headings, supporting penalties for deliberate ...
Customs valuation using comparable contemporaneous imports can displace declared value, while missing speaking orders require pursuit before competent...
Foreign customs declarations and importer admissions established undervaluation, supporting sequential value redetermination, differential duty, and m...
Customs seizure safeguards prevent detention-based limitation avoidance and invalidate provisional release conditions for imported vehicles under an i...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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
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
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.