Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
441 to 460 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" ?
Imported multifunctional goods described as wheelchairs with a toileting facility were held classifiable by their essential character and principal function. Their design, wheels and intended use showed that they remained mobility aids for disabled persons, while the toileting feature was only ancillary; heading 9402 was inapplicable because the goods were not specialised medical furniture and performed no medical or surgical function. The Tribunal also held that exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. applied once the goods fell under Heading 8713, and no unstated exclusion could be read into the notification to deny relief for the additional toileting feature. The appellate order was upheld.
Imported multifunctional goods described as wheelchairs with a toileting facility were held classifiable by their essential character and principal function. Their design, wheels and intended use showed that they remained mobility aids for disabled persons, while the toileting feature was only ancillary; heading 9402 was inapplicable because the goods were not specialised medical furniture and performed no medical or surgical function. The Tribunal also held that exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. applied once the goods fell under Heading 8713, and no unstated exclusion could be read into the notification to deny relief for the additional toileting feature. The appellate order was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
