<?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>1987 (7) TMI 323 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73457</link>
    <description>Imported rough machined forged rings were treated as compressor parts because, under Interpretative Rule 2(a), an unfinished article is classifiable as the finished article if it has its essential character on import and is capable only of completion into that product. The Tribunal found the goods were made to the buyer&#039;s specifications, had already undergone only finishing work, and had attained the approximate shape of the finished compressor components. It also reaffirmed that a specific tariff heading prevails over a general heading and that post-import machining cost is not decisive. On that basis, the goods fell under Heading 84.11(1), not Heading 73.33/40, and the refund claim was admissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Jun 2011 11:48:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111736" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (7) TMI 323 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73457</link>
      <description>Imported rough machined forged rings were treated as compressor parts because, under Interpretative Rule 2(a), an unfinished article is classifiable as the finished article if it has its essential character on import and is capable only of completion into that product. The Tribunal found the goods were made to the buyer&#039;s specifications, had already undergone only finishing work, and had attained the approximate shape of the finished compressor components. It also reaffirmed that a specific tariff heading prevails over a general heading and that post-import machining cost is not decisive. On that basis, the goods fell under Heading 84.11(1), not Heading 73.33/40, and the refund claim was admissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73457</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>