<?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>2020 (3) TMI 323 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393179</link>
    <description>Imported digital inkjet equipment was held to fall under CTH 8443 32 50 as an inkjet printer because its catalogue showed LAN TCP/IP network connectivity, satisfying the requirement of capability to connect to an automatic data processing machine or network by simple cable attachment. The HSN Explanatory Notes support this functional test for classification, and Board Circular No. 11/2008-Cus. treats large format printers meeting it as inkjet printers. On that basis, the contrary view that the goods were not digital inkjet printers or lacked network-connectivity capability was not sustainable, and classification under CTH 8443 39 10 was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2020 11:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=606233" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (3) TMI 323 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393179</link>
      <description>Imported digital inkjet equipment was held to fall under CTH 8443 32 50 as an inkjet printer because its catalogue showed LAN TCP/IP network connectivity, satisfying the requirement of capability to connect to an automatic data processing machine or network by simple cable attachment. The HSN Explanatory Notes support this functional test for classification, and Board Circular No. 11/2008-Cus. treats large format printers meeting it as inkjet printers. On that basis, the contrary view that the goods were not digital inkjet printers or lacked network-connectivity capability was not sustainable, and classification under CTH 8443 39 10 was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393179</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>