<?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>2005 (8) TMI 430 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115599</link>
    <description>Imported goods answering to the essential function of inverters were classifiable under Heading 8504.40, because their additional motor-speed control feature did not change their core character of converting direct current into alternating current. The earlier pre-1-1-1996 decision relied on by the importer was distinguished, and classification under Heading 8543.89 was rejected. As import of the goods required a specific import licence, confiscation for clearance without such licence was upheld. However, the importer&#039;s reliance on the earlier view was treated as bona fide, so the redemption fine was reduced and the penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 May 2012 13:16:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152598" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (8) TMI 430 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115599</link>
      <description>Imported goods answering to the essential function of inverters were classifiable under Heading 8504.40, because their additional motor-speed control feature did not change their core character of converting direct current into alternating current. The earlier pre-1-1-1996 decision relied on by the importer was distinguished, and classification under Heading 8543.89 was rejected. As import of the goods required a specific import licence, confiscation for clearance without such licence was upheld. However, the importer&#039;s reliance on the earlier view was treated as bona fide, so the redemption fine was reduced and the penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115599</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>