<?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 405 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109879</link>
    <description>A customs classification dispute turned on whether imported computer-related goods were personal computers under the import policy and therefore prohibited as low-value imports. Units with a processor and hard disk, capable of independent data processing, were treated as personal computers and liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. Network terminals imported only as part of a local area network were not to be treated separately as personal computers merely because they functioned within the system. The discussion also noted that exemption under Notification No. 211/83-Cus depended on the import-policy meaning of capital goods and the form in which the goods were imported, not merely their tariff classification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:06:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146895" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (6) TMI 405 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109879</link>
      <description>A customs classification dispute turned on whether imported computer-related goods were personal computers under the import policy and therefore prohibited as low-value imports. Units with a processor and hard disk, capable of independent data processing, were treated as personal computers and liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. Network terminals imported only as part of a local area network were not to be treated separately as personal computers merely because they functioned within the system. The discussion also noted that exemption under Notification No. 211/83-Cus depended on the import-policy meaning of capital goods and the form in which the goods were imported, not merely their tariff classification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109879</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>