<?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 (9) TMI 288 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74871</link>
    <description>Imported goods described in the bill of entry and invoice as decorative paper were held to fall under Item 48.01/21 rather than Item 39.01/06, because the decisive feature was the paper base with PVC embossing on one side, not the proportion of PVC used in the embossing process. The product retained the essential character of wallpaper or decorative paper, and the department had the burden of showing that it was outside the licence description. Unsupported characterisations as plastic wall covering or imitation leather were rejected for lack of technical or trade evidence, and the goods were treated as covered by the import licence for decorative paper.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:52:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113150" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (9) TMI 288 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74871</link>
      <description>Imported goods described in the bill of entry and invoice as decorative paper were held to fall under Item 48.01/21 rather than Item 39.01/06, because the decisive feature was the paper base with PVC embossing on one side, not the proportion of PVC used in the embossing process. The product retained the essential character of wallpaper or decorative paper, and the department had the burden of showing that it was outside the licence description. Unsupported characterisations as plastic wall covering or imitation leather were rejected for lack of technical or trade evidence, and the goods were treated as covered by the import licence for decorative paper.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74871</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>