<?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>1992 (5) TMI 102 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81865</link>
    <description>An exemption notification for imported bulk drugs required a certificate from the Drugs Controller confirming that the goods fell within the notification and were normally used for diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of disease. The certificate produced for Tartaric Acid specifically covered the goods in question, and no fixed form was prescribed. A certificate issued before actual import was not invalid if it related to the goods imported. The phrase &quot;conforming to pharmacopoeial standards&quot; was not read as requiring the product itself to bear a B.P. or U.S.P. designation. Customs could not go behind the competent authority&#039;s certification, and the exemption was available.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 May 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:19:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119010" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (5) TMI 102 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81865</link>
      <description>An exemption notification for imported bulk drugs required a certificate from the Drugs Controller confirming that the goods fell within the notification and were normally used for diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of disease. The certificate produced for Tartaric Acid specifically covered the goods in question, and no fixed form was prescribed. A certificate issued before actual import was not invalid if it related to the goods imported. The phrase &quot;conforming to pharmacopoeial standards&quot; was not read as requiring the product itself to bear a B.P. or U.S.P. designation. Customs could not go behind the competent authority&#039;s certification, and the exemption was available.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 May 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81865</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>