<?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>2002 (7) TMI 595 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106424</link>
    <description>Imported components of ballpoint pens were not treated as prohibited consumer goods under the import policy because, at the time of import, they remained separate parts requiring substantial further processing and assembly, including insertion, drilling and ink filling. The decisive test was the condition and utility of the goods on import: only articles already capable of directly satisfying human needs without significant processing could be classified as consumer goods. Import under a single bill of entry did not change that character. On that basis, the goods were not liable to confiscation as consumer goods, and the associated penalty was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:24:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143458" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (7) TMI 595 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106424</link>
      <description>Imported components of ballpoint pens were not treated as prohibited consumer goods under the import policy because, at the time of import, they remained separate parts requiring substantial further processing and assembly, including insertion, drilling and ink filling. The decisive test was the condition and utility of the goods on import: only articles already capable of directly satisfying human needs without significant processing could be classified as consumer goods. Import under a single bill of entry did not change that character. On that basis, the goods were not liable to confiscation as consumer goods, and the associated penalty was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106424</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>