<?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 (3) TMI 207 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84043</link>
    <description>Imported finned tubes were treated as classifiable under the specific tariff description for tubes and pipes rather than as parts of machinery. The trade parlance test supported this view because the goods were known in the market as finned tubes, and the CCCN Explanatory Notes identified finned tubes within the tubes heading. The contention that they should be classified as machinery parts was rejected because separately imported general parts are classified under the heading appropriate to the goods themselves, and the more specific description prevails over the general machinery heading. Accordingly, the proper classification was Tariff Item 73.17/19(1), not Tariff Item 84.17(1).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:40:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121187" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (3) TMI 207 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84043</link>
      <description>Imported finned tubes were treated as classifiable under the specific tariff description for tubes and pipes rather than as parts of machinery. The trade parlance test supported this view because the goods were known in the market as finned tubes, and the CCCN Explanatory Notes identified finned tubes within the tubes heading. The contention that they should be classified as machinery parts was rejected because separately imported general parts are classified under the heading appropriate to the goods themselves, and the more specific description prevails over the general machinery heading. Accordingly, the proper classification was Tariff Item 73.17/19(1), not Tariff Item 84.17(1).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84043</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>