<?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>1997 (5) TMI 196 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86987</link>
    <description>Imported springs were treated as general purpose goods and classified under Tariff Heading 7320.90, with the lower appellate classification left undisturbed. For the effective customs duty, Notification No. 62/86 was held to govern, and the applicable rate was taken as 150% rather than the notification cited in the challenged order. The appellate challenge therefore failed on both classification and duty rate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2011 17:19:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124054" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (5) TMI 196 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86987</link>
      <description>Imported springs were treated as general purpose goods and classified under Tariff Heading 7320.90, with the lower appellate classification left undisturbed. For the effective customs duty, Notification No. 62/86 was held to govern, and the applicable rate was taken as 150% rather than the notification cited in the challenged order. The appellate challenge therefore failed on both classification and duty rate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86987</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>