<?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>1982 (12) TMI 207 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165929</link>
    <description>Honing sticks imported for manufacture of ball and roller bearings were classified under sub-heading (1) of Heading 68.01/16, because the exclusion in sub-heading (2) for &quot;hand polishing stones, whetstones, oil stones and hones&quot; was construed on its plain wording. The Tribunal found that the word &quot;hand&quot; qualified only &quot;polishing stones&quot; and did not extend to whetstones, oil stones or hones. It also held that the Brussels Tariff Explanatory Notes could not override the language of the Customs Tariff Act. As a result, both hand-operated and machine-operated hones fell outside sub-heading (2), and the importer&#039;s classification claim was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Dec 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2014 10:39:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=363315" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (12) TMI 207 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165929</link>
      <description>Honing sticks imported for manufacture of ball and roller bearings were classified under sub-heading (1) of Heading 68.01/16, because the exclusion in sub-heading (2) for &quot;hand polishing stones, whetstones, oil stones and hones&quot; was construed on its plain wording. The Tribunal found that the word &quot;hand&quot; qualified only &quot;polishing stones&quot; and did not extend to whetstones, oil stones or hones. It also held that the Brussels Tariff Explanatory Notes could not override the language of the Customs Tariff Act. As a result, both hand-operated and machine-operated hones fell outside sub-heading (2), and the importer&#039;s classification claim was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Dec 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165929</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>