Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
641 to 660 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Imported blood glucose meters and similar diagnostic instruments were held classifiable under Heading 90.27 as instruments for chemical analysis, rather than under the more general medical instruments entry in Heading 90.18. The Tribunal applied the specific-over-general classification principle, followed its earlier view in Bayer Pharmaceuticals and Abbott Healthcare, and noted that view stood affirmed by the Supreme Court. On that basis, the goods were correctly classified under CTI 90278090 and the exemption under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. was available. The reclassification in the impugned order was rejected, and the differential duty demand and penalty were set aside.
Imported blood glucose meters and similar diagnostic instruments were held classifiable under Heading 90.27 as instruments for chemical analysis, rather than under the more general medical instruments entry in Heading 90.18. The Tribunal applied the specific-over-general classification principle, followed its earlier view in Bayer Pharmaceuticals and Abbott Healthcare, and noted that view stood affirmed by the Supreme Court. On that basis, the goods were correctly classified under CTI 90278090 and the exemption under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. was available. The reclassification in the impugned order was rejected, and the differential duty demand and penalty were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.