<?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>1975 (10) TMI 94 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161116</link>
    <description>Pyratax-Vinyl Pyridine Latex was classified on the basis of commercial understanding and common parlance, with technical tests used only as aids. The goods, examined in their imported condition, were known in trade as synthetic rubber latex and were used in tyre manufacture, supporting classification as rubber raw under Item 39 of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934. The authority&#039;s reliance on the material&#039;s ultimate dry-form use was rejected because the tariff entry did not make end-use determinative. An article with a reasonable claim to a specific tariff entry cannot be shifted to the residuary category on an extraneous basis, and the goods were therefore held outside the residuary and synthetic resin entries.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2014 17:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=341799" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (10) TMI 94 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161116</link>
      <description>Pyratax-Vinyl Pyridine Latex was classified on the basis of commercial understanding and common parlance, with technical tests used only as aids. The goods, examined in their imported condition, were known in trade as synthetic rubber latex and were used in tyre manufacture, supporting classification as rubber raw under Item 39 of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934. The authority&#039;s reliance on the material&#039;s ultimate dry-form use was rejected because the tariff entry did not make end-use determinative. An article with a reasonable claim to a specific tariff entry cannot be shifted to the residuary category on an extraneous basis, and the goods were therefore held outside the residuary and synthetic resin entries.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161116</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>