<?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 (12) TMI 423 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77920</link>
    <description>An ATP-based hygiene testing instrument was treated as classifiable under Heading 9031.80 as an other measuring or checking device, because its principal function was to detect contamination or cleanliness levels by measuring light emitted in a biochemical reaction, not to measure illumination as a luxmeter or other light-measuring instrument. Heading 9027 was found inapplicable since the product did not measure quantities of light in the relevant tariff sense, and its reference to separate instrument categories did not extend to this device. The applicable classification therefore remained under the residuary heading for other instruments, and the challenge to classification under Heading 9027 was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=116073" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (12) TMI 423 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77920</link>
      <description>An ATP-based hygiene testing instrument was treated as classifiable under Heading 9031.80 as an other measuring or checking device, because its principal function was to detect contamination or cleanliness levels by measuring light emitted in a biochemical reaction, not to measure illumination as a luxmeter or other light-measuring instrument. Heading 9027 was found inapplicable since the product did not measure quantities of light in the relevant tariff sense, and its reference to separate instrument categories did not extend to this device. The applicable classification therefore remained under the residuary heading for other instruments, and the challenge to classification under Heading 9027 was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77920</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>