<?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>2003 (10) TMI 361 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108075</link>
    <description>Classification of plastic foot bridges under the Customs Tariff depended on the nature of the goods, the relevant tariff entries and the applicable chapter notes. On examination of the record, the goods were found to correspond to sub-heading 3920.90 rather than the classification accepted in appeal. The classification under sub-heading 3920.90 was upheld, the order-in-appeal was set aside, and the order-in-original was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2012 16:18:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145092" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 361 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108075</link>
      <description>Classification of plastic foot bridges under the Customs Tariff depended on the nature of the goods, the relevant tariff entries and the applicable chapter notes. On examination of the record, the goods were found to correspond to sub-heading 3920.90 rather than the classification accepted in appeal. The classification under sub-heading 3920.90 was upheld, the order-in-appeal was set aside, and the order-in-original was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108075</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>