Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
Denial of Preferential Treatment under SAFTA overturned where unchallenged Country of Origin certificate warranted exemption under Notification benefi...
Continuing offence of money-laundering: discharge set aside and proceedings reinstated where laundering continued after inclusion of predicate offence...
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
