<?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 (1) TMI 213 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80488</link>
    <description>Flats of tool and die steel imported under an actual user licence were analysed under competing entries in the Import Export Policy 1984-85. The specific entry for flats of all grades of alloy steel in Appendix 4, Part-C was treated as governing because tool and die steel with the stated chromium and carbon content was treated as alloy steel, while the broader entry for forged or rolled tool and die steel in Appendix 3, Part-B did not specifically cover flats. Applying the rule that a more specific entry prevails over a generic or differently worded description, the goods were held to fall within the licence and not to be liable to confiscation on that basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:24:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117634" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (1) TMI 213 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80488</link>
      <description>Flats of tool and die steel imported under an actual user licence were analysed under competing entries in the Import Export Policy 1984-85. The specific entry for flats of all grades of alloy steel in Appendix 4, Part-C was treated as governing because tool and die steel with the stated chromium and carbon content was treated as alloy steel, while the broader entry for forged or rolled tool and die steel in Appendix 3, Part-B did not specifically cover flats. Applying the rule that a more specific entry prevails over a generic or differently worded description, the goods were held to fall within the licence and not to be liable to confiscation on that basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80488</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>