<?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>2022 (2) TMI 308 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418057</link>
    <description>Imported interactive flat panel display systems were treated as automatic data processing machines because they contained a CPU, RAM, storage, operating software, an OPS slot and connectivity ports, and could store, execute and process programmes on a standalone basis. Under Chapter Note 5(A) to Chapter 84, these features satisfied classification under Customs Tariff Item 8471 41 90. The display size and screen capability were regarded as product features rather than the principal function, so classification as monitors under Customs Tariff Item 8528 52 00 was rejected. Rule 3(c) of the General Rules for Interpretation was unnecessary because Rule 1 and the Chapter Notes were sufficient to resolve the tariff classification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2025 13:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=669625" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (2) TMI 308 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418057</link>
      <description>Imported interactive flat panel display systems were treated as automatic data processing machines because they contained a CPU, RAM, storage, operating software, an OPS slot and connectivity ports, and could store, execute and process programmes on a standalone basis. Under Chapter Note 5(A) to Chapter 84, these features satisfied classification under Customs Tariff Item 8471 41 90. The display size and screen capability were regarded as product features rather than the principal function, so classification as monitors under Customs Tariff Item 8528 52 00 was rejected. Rule 3(c) of the General Rules for Interpretation was unnecessary because Rule 1 and the Chapter Notes were sufficient to resolve the tariff classification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418057</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>