<?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>1999 (4) TMI 222 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91386</link>
    <description>Imported colour heads and related photographic components were treated as spare parts, not complete enlargers, because essential parts such as the baseboard, column, lens, and filter assemblies were absent in the consignments. Tariff classification principles under the customs rules were not allowed to control the import policy entry, and in the absence of a corresponding interpretative provision in the Import (Control) Order, the goods were to be classified by their ordinary commercial identity. On that basis, the additional licences covered the imports and confiscation was not justified. Invoice value also could not be enhanced merely on a manufacturer&#039;s price list without evidence of actual imports at those prices, so valuation enhancement failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:35:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128448" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (4) TMI 222 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91386</link>
      <description>Imported colour heads and related photographic components were treated as spare parts, not complete enlargers, because essential parts such as the baseboard, column, lens, and filter assemblies were absent in the consignments. Tariff classification principles under the customs rules were not allowed to control the import policy entry, and in the absence of a corresponding interpretative provision in the Import (Control) Order, the goods were to be classified by their ordinary commercial identity. On that basis, the additional licences covered the imports and confiscation was not justified. Invoice value also could not be enhanced merely on a manufacturer&#039;s price list without evidence of actual imports at those prices, so valuation enhancement failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91386</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>