<?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>1995 (1) TMI 172 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83988</link>
    <description>Imported tap headworks were treated as components rather than consumer goods because they could not directly satisfy human needs without further fitting and assembly, so they were outside the consumer goods restriction. They also did not fall within the policy exclusion for hardware or pipe fittings, as that entry was read as covering finished articles rather than unfinished components. For imports under the general licence entry for raw materials, components and consumables, no separate requirement was imposed that the goods also appear in List 8, Part I or Part II unless the policy said so expressly. The result was that the goods qualified for clearance under OGL and the confiscation and penalty order could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2011 11:17:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121132" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (1) TMI 172 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83988</link>
      <description>Imported tap headworks were treated as components rather than consumer goods because they could not directly satisfy human needs without further fitting and assembly, so they were outside the consumer goods restriction. They also did not fall within the policy exclusion for hardware or pipe fittings, as that entry was read as covering finished articles rather than unfinished components. For imports under the general licence entry for raw materials, components and consumables, no separate requirement was imposed that the goods also appear in List 8, Part I or Part II unless the policy said so expressly. The result was that the goods qualified for clearance under OGL and the confiscation and penalty order could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83988</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>