<?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>2025 (1) TMI 556 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764494</link>
    <description>Hybrid/Pure Matrix Cards for PTN equipment and Small Form Factor Pluggable transceivers were treated as parts of modular telecom equipment because they operated only when inserted into dedicated chassis slots, were not cross-compatible, and had no standalone function. They were therefore classified under CTI 8517 70 10 and 8517 70 90, not as network interface cards or other apparatus under CTI 8517 62 90. Rule 2(a) of the Import Tariff and Section XVI Note 3 were held inapplicable because the goods were not incomplete complete articles with essential character, and the main equipment was not a composite machine of the kind contemplated by the notes. The departmental classification was rejected and the goods were held classifiable as parts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2025 11:43:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=788149" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 556 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764494</link>
      <description>Hybrid/Pure Matrix Cards for PTN equipment and Small Form Factor Pluggable transceivers were treated as parts of modular telecom equipment because they operated only when inserted into dedicated chassis slots, were not cross-compatible, and had no standalone function. They were therefore classified under CTI 8517 70 10 and 8517 70 90, not as network interface cards or other apparatus under CTI 8517 62 90. Rule 2(a) of the Import Tariff and Section XVI Note 3 were held inapplicable because the goods were not incomplete complete articles with essential character, and the main equipment was not a composite machine of the kind contemplated by the notes. The departmental classification was rejected and the goods were held classifiable as parts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764494</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>