<?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>1990 (3) TMI 169 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80455</link>
    <description>Imported valves were examined for tariff classification under Heading 84.61 of the Customs Tariff Act, with the dispute turning on whether they qualified as isolating valves under sub-heading 84.61(2) or as valves not elsewhere specified under 84.61(1). The descriptions in the Bill of Entry, invoice and other documents referred to the goods as Hopkinsons Parallel Slide Valve and stop valves, but the supporting material did not conclusively establish that the imported goods were isolating valves. The drawing and regulatory extract relied upon did not specifically identify the goods as isolating valves, so the claimed classification failed and the Revenue&#039;s classification was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117601" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (3) TMI 169 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80455</link>
      <description>Imported valves were examined for tariff classification under Heading 84.61 of the Customs Tariff Act, with the dispute turning on whether they qualified as isolating valves under sub-heading 84.61(2) or as valves not elsewhere specified under 84.61(1). The descriptions in the Bill of Entry, invoice and other documents referred to the goods as Hopkinsons Parallel Slide Valve and stop valves, but the supporting material did not conclusively establish that the imported goods were isolating valves. The drawing and regulatory extract relied upon did not specifically identify the goods as isolating valves, so the claimed classification failed and the Revenue&#039;s classification was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80455</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>