<?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 (8) TMI 127 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83555</link>
    <description>Dies used to manufacture scooter parts were treated as interchangeable tools under Customs Tariff Heading 82.05, corresponding to Heading 8207.90 in the connected matter, because the relevant test is whether the goods are suitable for fitting into the applicable machine or tool. The expression &quot;interchangeable tools&quot; was construed by reference to interchangeability for a particular machine or use, not by asking whether the dies themselves can perform multiple functions or are mutually interchangeable. The Explanatory Notes to the CCCN were regarded as highly persuasive. Earlier Tribunal decisions taking a contrary view were distinguished and not followed, and the customs classification under Heading 84.45/48 was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Aug 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Jul 2011 11:38:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120700" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (8) TMI 127 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83555</link>
      <description>Dies used to manufacture scooter parts were treated as interchangeable tools under Customs Tariff Heading 82.05, corresponding to Heading 8207.90 in the connected matter, because the relevant test is whether the goods are suitable for fitting into the applicable machine or tool. The expression &quot;interchangeable tools&quot; was construed by reference to interchangeability for a particular machine or use, not by asking whether the dies themselves can perform multiple functions or are mutually interchangeable. The Explanatory Notes to the CCCN were regarded as highly persuasive. Earlier Tribunal decisions taking a contrary view were distinguished and not followed, and the customs classification under Heading 84.45/48 was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Aug 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83555</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>