<?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 (5) TMI 385 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108981</link>
    <description>Imported plastic laminated sheets were not treated as consumer goods for import control purposes because they were not directly covered by the relevant definition, and their use in making furniture and decoration items did not change their character. The departmental challenge was found to rest on a self-contradictory premise, so interference with the adjudication order was not justified and the classification in favour of the importer was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2012 12:31:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145998" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (5) TMI 385 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108981</link>
      <description>Imported plastic laminated sheets were not treated as consumer goods for import control purposes because they were not directly covered by the relevant definition, and their use in making furniture and decoration items did not change their character. The departmental challenge was found to rest on a self-contradictory premise, so interference with the adjudication order was not justified and the classification in favour of the importer was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108981</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>