<?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 (11) TMI 685 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400930</link>
    <description>Imported medical equipment brought in SKD condition was to be assessed as a complete article where the goods, on assembly, retained the essential character of the finished colour Doppler and ultrasound scanning equipment. Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Customs Tariff required such incomplete or unfinished articles to be classified as the complete product, and Chapter Note 2(b) to Chapter 90, read with the CBIC clarification, supported classification of parts used solely or principally with the machine together with the equipment. The Revenue could not split the imports under different tariff headings, and the demand, penalties and denial of CVD exemption were held unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=628315" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (11) TMI 685 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400930</link>
      <description>Imported medical equipment brought in SKD condition was to be assessed as a complete article where the goods, on assembly, retained the essential character of the finished colour Doppler and ultrasound scanning equipment. Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Customs Tariff required such incomplete or unfinished articles to be classified as the complete product, and Chapter Note 2(b) to Chapter 90, read with the CBIC clarification, supported classification of parts used solely or principally with the machine together with the equipment. The Revenue could not split the imports under different tariff headings, and the demand, penalties and denial of CVD exemption were held unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400930</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>