Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
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.