<?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>1996 (4) TMI 204 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85238</link>
    <description>Tariff classification of imported speakers and speaker systems under Tariff Item 33F(ii) depended on satisfaction of multiple conditions, including whether the goods were housed in acoustically designed enclosures and ordinarily used as attachments with stereo, hi-fi, radio and related equipment. The available record did not establish all required characteristics, so the classification question could not be finally determined. Because the original and appellate orders had not examined all relevant parameters and the primary record was incomplete, the matter was sent back for de novo adjudication with opportunity for the parties to produce relevant evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Aug 2011 16:28:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122305" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (4) TMI 204 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85238</link>
      <description>Tariff classification of imported speakers and speaker systems under Tariff Item 33F(ii) depended on satisfaction of multiple conditions, including whether the goods were housed in acoustically designed enclosures and ordinarily used as attachments with stereo, hi-fi, radio and related equipment. The available record did not establish all required characteristics, so the classification question could not be finally determined. Because the original and appellate orders had not examined all relevant parameters and the primary record was incomplete, the matter was sent back for de novo adjudication with opportunity for the parties to produce relevant evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85238</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>