<?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>2015 (11) TMI 816 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268007</link>
    <description>Imported parts of agricultural machinery were held to be classifiable under their specific tariff headings where the tariff notes required goods with independent entries to be classified accordingly; items falling under headings 7308 and 7320 were treated as parts of agricultural machinery because they were not covered as general-use goods. On that basis, classification was upheld for most items, but relief was granted for the items remaining under Chapter 8432. Penalty and fine were also found unsustainable because the dispute turned on a bona fide and debatable interpretation of the tariff notes, and the declaration of the goods as agricultural machinery parts did not justify a finding of deliberate misdeclaration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 May 2016 17:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=405651" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 816 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268007</link>
      <description>Imported parts of agricultural machinery were held to be classifiable under their specific tariff headings where the tariff notes required goods with independent entries to be classified accordingly; items falling under headings 7308 and 7320 were treated as parts of agricultural machinery because they were not covered as general-use goods. On that basis, classification was upheld for most items, but relief was granted for the items remaining under Chapter 8432. Penalty and fine were also found unsustainable because the dispute turned on a bona fide and debatable interpretation of the tariff notes, and the declaration of the goods as agricultural machinery parts did not justify a finding of deliberate misdeclaration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268007</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>