<?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 (8) TMI 120 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410542</link>
    <description>Bluetooth modules used in car infotainment systems were held to answer the tariff description for machines that receive, convert and transmit voice or data under Heading 8517. As the record treated the module as not established to be a part of the infotainment system, Chapter Note 2(b) to Section XVI could not be used to force classification under Heading 8529, and the sequential approach to the section notes required prior consideration of Note 2(a). The appellate order was also found unsustainable because it largely reproduced the lower order without independent examination or recorded reasoning. The impugned appellate order was set aside and the importer&#039;s classification was accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2022 11:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=651529" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (8) TMI 120 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410542</link>
      <description>Bluetooth modules used in car infotainment systems were held to answer the tariff description for machines that receive, convert and transmit voice or data under Heading 8517. As the record treated the module as not established to be a part of the infotainment system, Chapter Note 2(b) to Section XVI could not be used to force classification under Heading 8529, and the sequential approach to the section notes required prior consideration of Note 2(a). The appellate order was also found unsustainable because it largely reproduced the lower order without independent examination or recorded reasoning. The impugned appellate order was set aside and the importer&#039;s classification was accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410542</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>