<?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>2009 (9) TMI 335 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76071</link>
    <description>A typographical error in the tariff heading of an exemption notification cannot defeat concessional customs duty where the exempting portion clearly identifies the goods by description and the goods otherwise fall within the intended entry. The Bombay High Court noted that the notification named ethyl/butyl glycol, while the incorrect tariff reference was treated as a clerical mistake. A chemical laboratory affidavit supported that the goods corresponded to ethylene glycol monoethyl ether and ethylene glycol monobutyl ether under the relevant tariff heading. The petitioner was therefore entitled to the concessional duty benefit and clearance on the interim concessional basis was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114295" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (9) TMI 335 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76071</link>
      <description>A typographical error in the tariff heading of an exemption notification cannot defeat concessional customs duty where the exempting portion clearly identifies the goods by description and the goods otherwise fall within the intended entry. The Bombay High Court noted that the notification named ethyl/butyl glycol, while the incorrect tariff reference was treated as a clerical mistake. A chemical laboratory affidavit supported that the goods corresponded to ethylene glycol monoethyl ether and ethylene glycol monobutyl ether under the relevant tariff heading. The petitioner was therefore entitled to the concessional duty benefit and clearance on the interim concessional basis was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76071</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>