<?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>2009 (2) TMI 159 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34458</link>
    <description>Imported dredger components presented in knocked-down condition retained the essential character of a complete suction type dredger, so classification under Heading 8905.10 was appropriate by application of Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules. The absence of pontoons and some outlet pipes did not convert the consignment into mere separately presented parts and accessories. Note 1(B) to Chapter 89 of the HSN Explanatory Notes did not bar classification as a dredger where the imported goods were complete in substance despite dismantled presentation. The contrary view was based on a misreading of the note, and the goods were held classifiable as a dredger.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73081" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 159 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34458</link>
      <description>Imported dredger components presented in knocked-down condition retained the essential character of a complete suction type dredger, so classification under Heading 8905.10 was appropriate by application of Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules. The absence of pontoons and some outlet pipes did not convert the consignment into mere separately presented parts and accessories. Note 1(B) to Chapter 89 of the HSN Explanatory Notes did not bar classification as a dredger where the imported goods were complete in substance despite dismantled presentation. The contrary view was based on a misreading of the note, and the goods were held classifiable as a dredger.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34458</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>