<?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 (6) TMI 386 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109553</link>
    <description>Imported specialised repair material used for industrial repairs was held not to be consumer goods because it was suitable for machinery and equipment repairs and did not directly satisfy human needs. On that factual basis, the goods did not fall within the consumer goods description under the Export-Import Policy, and the contrary finding in the orders below lacked support. The goods were therefore not liable to confiscation for want of a specific import licence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:33:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146570" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (6) TMI 386 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109553</link>
      <description>Imported specialised repair material used for industrial repairs was held not to be consumer goods because it was suitable for machinery and equipment repairs and did not directly satisfy human needs. On that factual basis, the goods did not fall within the consumer goods description under the Export-Import Policy, and the contrary finding in the orders below lacked support. The goods were therefore not liable to confiscation for want of a specific import licence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109553</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>