<?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 (11) TMI 847 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334829</link>
    <description>Portable external hard disk drives were held classifiable under heading 84717030 as removable or exchangeable disc drives, not under heading 84717020 as hard disc drives, because exemption-linked tariff entries must be satisfied by both the tariff classification and the notification description, interpreted in trade parlance. On the evidence, the goods functioned as removable storage devices and matched the exemption entry. The Tribunal also rejected the limitation plea, holding that each import is assessed independently and that the bills of entry did not fully disclose the goods&#039; portable character, justifying the extended period for recovery. The duty demand and denial of exemption were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Apr 2017 15:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=448686" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 847 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334829</link>
      <description>Portable external hard disk drives were held classifiable under heading 84717030 as removable or exchangeable disc drives, not under heading 84717020 as hard disc drives, because exemption-linked tariff entries must be satisfied by both the tariff classification and the notification description, interpreted in trade parlance. On the evidence, the goods functioned as removable storage devices and matched the exemption entry. The Tribunal also rejected the limitation plea, holding that each import is assessed independently and that the bills of entry did not fully disclose the goods&#039; portable character, justifying the extended period for recovery. The duty demand and denial of exemption were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334829</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>