<?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 (3) TMI 354 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74392</link>
    <description>Tariff classification of imported mortar grinders turned on the scope of Headings 84.56 and 84.59(2), which require the machine to fall within the specific description and, for Heading 84.59(2), to be designed for production of a commodity. The catalogue showed multiple uses and did not establish exclusive design for commodity production, so Heading 84.59(2) and Heading 84.56 were held inapplicable and the grinders remained classifiable under Heading 84.59(1). The mortar and pestles could not be finally classified on the existing record because the earlier finding rested on an incorrect factual assumption, so that issue was remitted for fresh decision after evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Jun 2011 15:41:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112671" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (3) TMI 354 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74392</link>
      <description>Tariff classification of imported mortar grinders turned on the scope of Headings 84.56 and 84.59(2), which require the machine to fall within the specific description and, for Heading 84.59(2), to be designed for production of a commodity. The catalogue showed multiple uses and did not establish exclusive design for commodity production, so Heading 84.59(2) and Heading 84.56 were held inapplicable and the grinders remained classifiable under Heading 84.59(1). The mortar and pestles could not be finally classified on the existing record because the earlier finding rested on an incorrect factual assumption, so that issue was remitted for fresh decision after evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74392</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>