<?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 (9) TMI 195 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80906</link>
    <description>Import classification of microfilm reader lenses turned on whether they were &quot;objectives&quot; under Appendix 3A, entry 549, or components eligible for OGL. The notice was held vague because it gave no reasons for the proposed classification, and the adjudication was deficient because it failed to address the trader&#039;s technical and commercial material and withheld the technical appraiser&#039;s report. On the merits, &quot;objectives&quot; was read in its common and trade meaning as lenses used in microscopes or telescopes, and the evidence showed the goods were commercially treated as lenses, not objectives. Prior clearances and no substantial policy change supported that view.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:58:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118051" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (9) TMI 195 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80906</link>
      <description>Import classification of microfilm reader lenses turned on whether they were &quot;objectives&quot; under Appendix 3A, entry 549, or components eligible for OGL. The notice was held vague because it gave no reasons for the proposed classification, and the adjudication was deficient because it failed to address the trader&#039;s technical and commercial material and withheld the technical appraiser&#039;s report. On the merits, &quot;objectives&quot; was read in its common and trade meaning as lenses used in microscopes or telescopes, and the evidence showed the goods were commercially treated as lenses, not objectives. Prior clearances and no substantial policy change supported that view.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80906</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>