<?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>2016 (2) TMI 855 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272150</link>
    <description>The Authority for Advance Rulings determined that the product &quot;Galaxy K Zoom&quot; is classified as a telephone under Customs Tariff Heading 8517, rejecting the argument that it should be classified as a digital camera under CTH 8525. Therefore, the issue of eligibility for customs duty exemption under Notification No. 25/2005, which applies to digital still image cameras, was deemed irrelevant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2017 11:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=417875" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 855 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272150</link>
      <description>The Authority for Advance Rulings determined that the product &quot;Galaxy K Zoom&quot; is classified as a telephone under Customs Tariff Heading 8517, rejecting the argument that it should be classified as a digital camera under CTH 8525. Therefore, the issue of eligibility for customs duty exemption under Notification No. 25/2005, which applies to digital still image cameras, was deemed irrelevant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272150</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>