<?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>1991 (12) TMI 158 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81664</link>
    <description>A stabilised form of 3-Dimethylamine-1-Chloropropane HCl 50% aqueous solution remained classifiable in Chapter 29 because Note 1(f) treats products containing an added stabiliser necessary for preservation or transport as still falling within the chapter. Technical evidence showed the hydrochloric acid was added only to stabilise an unstable organic base and that the imported item was commercially and chemically the same as 3-Dimethylamine-1-Chloropropane. On that basis, the exemption notification was not to be read narrowly so as to exclude the stabilised form where the underlying product remained unchanged. The goods were therefore covered by the notification and exemption was admissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Dec 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:51:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118809" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (12) TMI 158 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81664</link>
      <description>A stabilised form of 3-Dimethylamine-1-Chloropropane HCl 50% aqueous solution remained classifiable in Chapter 29 because Note 1(f) treats products containing an added stabiliser necessary for preservation or transport as still falling within the chapter. Technical evidence showed the hydrochloric acid was added only to stabilise an unstable organic base and that the imported item was commercially and chemically the same as 3-Dimethylamine-1-Chloropropane. On that basis, the exemption notification was not to be read narrowly so as to exclude the stabilised form where the underlying product remained unchanged. The goods were therefore covered by the notification and exemption was admissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Dec 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81664</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>