https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88949 The imported item was examined for classification between a part of an automatic data processing machine and a part of a phototypesetting machine. Because the appellant's own records showed that it was meant for use in the monitor assembly of the phototypesetting machine, it was treated as a component assessable under Tariff Heading 8473.30 rather than as an independent part of printing or phototypesetting machinery. The classification under Tariff Heading 8473.30 was therefore upheld, and the refund claim failed. en-us Tue, 05 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Sep 2011 13:53:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88949 The imported item was examined for classification between a part of an automatic data processing machine and a part of a phototypesetting machine. Because the appellant's own records showed that it was meant for use in the monitor assembly of the phototypesetting machine, it was treated as a component assessable under Tariff Heading 8473.30 rather than as an independent part of printing or phototypesetting machinery. The classification under Tariff Heading 8473.30 was therefore upheld, and the refund claim failed. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 05 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88949