<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1986 (6) TMI 126 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72370</link>
    <description>Imported Incoloy-800 was held not to fall within &quot;stainless steel&quot; under Item 73.15(2) of the Customs Tariff; the material was treated as a nickel alloy rather than stainless steel after reference to scientific literature, commercial understanding, ASTM standards and its composition. The analysis rejected chromium content as the sole test, noting that stainless steel is a species of alloy steel but not every alloy steel qualifies. It was also held that the later statutory definition of &quot;stainless steel&quot; could not be read back into the earlier unamended entry, because the earlier wording did not justify that approach and the later amendment operated in a different scheme. Strict construction of taxing entries and trade meaning controlled classification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 May 2011 18:13:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110649" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (6) TMI 126 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72370</link>
      <description>Imported Incoloy-800 was held not to fall within &quot;stainless steel&quot; under Item 73.15(2) of the Customs Tariff; the material was treated as a nickel alloy rather than stainless steel after reference to scientific literature, commercial understanding, ASTM standards and its composition. The analysis rejected chromium content as the sole test, noting that stainless steel is a species of alloy steel but not every alloy steel qualifies. It was also held that the later statutory definition of &quot;stainless steel&quot; could not be read back into the earlier unamended entry, because the earlier wording did not justify that approach and the later amendment operated in a different scheme. Strict construction of taxing entries and trade meaning controlled classification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72370</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>