<?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 (10) TMI 416 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100460</link>
    <description>Rough investment castings intended for firearm use do not become parts of a firearm unless they have lost the character of castings and acquired the essential character of finished components through sufficient machining and processing. Applying the distinction between raw castings, proof-machined castings and finished machine parts, the Tribunal found the exported goods remained rough and unfinished and still required substantial machining and heat treatment before use in a shotgun. As they had not reached the stage of usable firearm parts, the Arms Act licensing requirement and customs confiscation provisions did not apply, and the confiscation and penalty could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137511" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (10) TMI 416 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100460</link>
      <description>Rough investment castings intended for firearm use do not become parts of a firearm unless they have lost the character of castings and acquired the essential character of finished components through sufficient machining and processing. Applying the distinction between raw castings, proof-machined castings and finished machine parts, the Tribunal found the exported goods remained rough and unfinished and still required substantial machining and heat treatment before use in a shotgun. As they had not reached the stage of usable firearm parts, the Arms Act licensing requirement and customs confiscation provisions did not apply, and the confiscation and penalty could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100460</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>