https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102188 The commentary notes that, in connected customs appeals, the Tribunal followed its earlier decision between the same parties on both valuation and classification. Landing charges were treated as includible in the CIF value for customs assessment because the earlier ratio on the same appellants was applied without distinguishing facts. Insoluble sulphur was classified under Heading 35.01/32-(10) rather than Heading 38.01/90-(1), again by following the prior decision in the appellants' own case. The result was that the valuation issue went against the appellants, while the classification issue was decided in their favour, leading to a partly allowed disposal. en-us Mon, 20 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:19:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102188 The commentary notes that, in connected customs appeals, the Tribunal followed its earlier decision between the same parties on both valuation and classification. Landing charges were treated as includible in the CIF value for customs assessment because the earlier ratio on the same appellants was applied without distinguishing facts. Insoluble sulphur was classified under Heading 35.01/32-(10) rather than Heading 38.01/90-(1), again by following the prior decision in the appellants' own case. The result was that the valuation issue went against the appellants, while the classification issue was decided in their favour, leading to a partly allowed disposal. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 20 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102188