https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107281 Imported main frames were examined to determine whether they had the essential character of complete photocopiers under Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules or were only components permitted under the Exim Policy. Conflicting expert reports were material: one indicated complete optics and photocopier characteristics, while another noted rust, dents, missing mother board and PCB connections, and damaged optics. In the absence of convincing revenue evidence that the goods possessed the essential characteristics of complete machines, classification as complete photocopying machines was not justified. The goods were treated as components, and the confiscation and penalty based on contrary classification did not survive. en-us Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:17:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107281 Imported main frames were examined to determine whether they had the essential character of complete photocopiers under Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules or were only components permitted under the Exim Policy. Conflicting expert reports were material: one indicated complete optics and photocopier characteristics, while another noted rust, dents, missing mother board and PCB connections, and damaged optics. In the absence of convincing revenue evidence that the goods possessed the essential characteristics of complete machines, classification as complete photocopying machines was not justified. The goods were treated as components, and the confiscation and penalty based on contrary classification did not survive. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107281