<?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>1994 (7) TMI 150 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83375</link>
    <description>Under the import and export policy for handicrafts made of sandalwood, export depended on proof of hand-made character, artistic or decorative value, and a competent authority&#039;s certificate confirming the prescribed value addition. A duly issued and unrebutted certificate, supported by expert and inspection reports describing surface ornamentation and traditional hand carving, was sufficient to satisfy those policy requirements. A comment that the carving could have been deeper did not establish that the goods lacked artistic or decorative value, and the refusal to allow further expert evidence was treated as an incorrect approach. The goods were accordingly regarded as falling within the policy description of handicrafts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jul 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2011 10:51:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120520" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (7) TMI 150 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83375</link>
      <description>Under the import and export policy for handicrafts made of sandalwood, export depended on proof of hand-made character, artistic or decorative value, and a competent authority&#039;s certificate confirming the prescribed value addition. A duly issued and unrebutted certificate, supported by expert and inspection reports describing surface ornamentation and traditional hand carving, was sufficient to satisfy those policy requirements. A comment that the carving could have been deeper did not establish that the goods lacked artistic or decorative value, and the refusal to allow further expert evidence was treated as an incorrect approach. The goods were accordingly regarded as falling within the policy description of handicrafts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jul 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83375</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>