<?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 (6) TMI 495 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98553</link>
    <description>An imported second-hand multi-spindle copying, duplicating and profile milling machine was construed as falling within Item No. 12 of Appendix-I Part-B of the Import Policy 1985-88 and was therefore eligible for import under the Open General Licence. The entry was read on its own terms, and the technical material showing that special-purpose milling machines may have horizontal, vertical and angular spindles supported the importer&#039;s case. Where doubt remained about the scope of an import policy entry, the interpretation beneficial to the importer was preferred. The competing expert material was treated as insufficient to displace that construction, and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Jan 2012 11:22:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135610" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (6) TMI 495 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98553</link>
      <description>An imported second-hand multi-spindle copying, duplicating and profile milling machine was construed as falling within Item No. 12 of Appendix-I Part-B of the Import Policy 1985-88 and was therefore eligible for import under the Open General Licence. The entry was read on its own terms, and the technical material showing that special-purpose milling machines may have horizontal, vertical and angular spindles supported the importer&#039;s case. Where doubt remained about the scope of an import policy entry, the interpretation beneficial to the importer was preferred. The competing expert material was treated as insufficient to displace that construction, and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98553</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>