<?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>2001 (8) TMI 411 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97217</link>
    <description>Imported goods described as a designer&#039;s kit were treated as covered by the relevant import policy entry for use in the leather industry because the bill of entry, literature, catalogue and technical certificates, including the CLRI certificate, showed design-related use. The customs house practice of accepting such goods as designer&#039;s kits was also relied on, and the fact that the items were separately invoiced or capable of other uses did not displace that classification. On that basis, the conclusion that the goods fell outside Appendix 17 and were liable to confiscation was unsustainable, and the confiscation order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Jan 2012 14:08:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134275" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (8) TMI 411 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97217</link>
      <description>Imported goods described as a designer&#039;s kit were treated as covered by the relevant import policy entry for use in the leather industry because the bill of entry, literature, catalogue and technical certificates, including the CLRI certificate, showed design-related use. The customs house practice of accepting such goods as designer&#039;s kits was also relied on, and the fact that the items were separately invoiced or capable of other uses did not displace that classification. On that basis, the conclusion that the goods fell outside Appendix 17 and were liable to confiscation was unsustainable, and the confiscation order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97217</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>