<?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 374 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74210</link>
    <description>Imported safety coupling and rebuilding sets were examined for tariff classification under the Customs Tariff Act. In the absence of documentary evidence establishing the exact nature of the goods, the safety coupling was accepted as a shaft coupling and treated as classifiable under Heading 84.63. The rebuilding set was regarded as a bearing, and, no contrary proof having been produced, the classification adopted by the customs authorities was upheld. The appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2011 14:43:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112489" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (7) TMI 374 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74210</link>
      <description>Imported safety coupling and rebuilding sets were examined for tariff classification under the Customs Tariff Act. In the absence of documentary evidence establishing the exact nature of the goods, the safety coupling was accepted as a shaft coupling and treated as classifiable under Heading 84.63. The rebuilding set was regarded as a bearing, and, no contrary proof having been produced, the classification adopted by the customs authorities was upheld. The appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74210</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>