<?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>Circumstantial Evidence Insufficient in Classification Dispute Over &#039;Embroidery Needles&#039; vs &#039;Sewing Machine Needles&#039;.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=45700</link>
    <description>Circumstantial evidence, such as stickers on the packing, that part of the consignment declared to be ‘embroidery needles’ was, admittedly, composed of ‘sewing machine needles’ and that a different model number designates ‘embroidery needles’, are not acceptable in a dispute on classification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2019 08:44:57 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2019 08:44:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=565684" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Circumstantial Evidence Insufficient in Classification Dispute Over &#039;Embroidery Needles&#039; vs &#039;Sewing Machine Needles&#039;.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=45700</link>
      <description>Circumstantial evidence, such as stickers on the packing, that part of the consignment declared to be ‘embroidery needles’ was, admittedly, composed of ‘sewing machine needles’ and that a different model number designates ‘embroidery needles’, are not acceptable in a dispute on classification.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2019 08:44:57 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=45700</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>