https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102819 Where import documents consistently described the goods as disposable cannulae, that documentary evidence prevailed over a Customs Appraiser's bare visual impression, which was not treated as expert opinion and was unsupported by testing. The record also did not show that the goods were complete hypodermic needles made up of a tube, hub and sheath. The goods were therefore treated as cannulae rather than bare needles, and the exemption under Notification No. 20/99-Cus. was accepted. en-us Thu, 01 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:12:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102819 Where import documents consistently described the goods as disposable cannulae, that documentary evidence prevailed over a Customs Appraiser's bare visual impression, which was not treated as expert opinion and was unsupported by testing. The record also did not show that the goods were complete hypodermic needles made up of a tube, hub and sheath. The goods were therefore treated as cannulae rather than bare needles, and the exemption under Notification No. 20/99-Cus. was accepted. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 01 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102819