<?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>2021 (7) TMI 1114 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS-I), CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410272</link>
    <description>Customs classification turns on the actual character of the imported goods as established by tariff-relevant evidence and the applicable chapter notes. An FSSAI laboratory report was treated as relevant only to fitness for human consumption and not as a basis for tariff classification. The CRCL report, read with later clarification, was accepted as reliable and supported treatment of the goods as whole betel nuts rather than boiled supari. Advance rulings cited by the importers were held applicable only to the specific applicants and different factual matrices. On the facts, the goods were classifiable under CTH 0802 80 10 and not under CTH 2106 90 30.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:50:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=650979" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (7) TMI 1114 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS-I), CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410272</link>
      <description>Customs classification turns on the actual character of the imported goods as established by tariff-relevant evidence and the applicable chapter notes. An FSSAI laboratory report was treated as relevant only to fitness for human consumption and not as a basis for tariff classification. The CRCL report, read with later clarification, was accepted as reliable and supported treatment of the goods as whole betel nuts rather than boiled supari. Advance rulings cited by the importers were held applicable only to the specific applicants and different factual matrices. On the facts, the goods were classifiable under CTH 0802 80 10 and not under CTH 2106 90 30.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410272</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>