https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85850 CESTAT ruled on classification dispute regarding imported Cap Sub Assembly for Door Outside Handle. Appellant's goods, declared as door handles in Bills of Entry, were determined classifiable under CTH 87082900 (parts and accessories of bodies) rather than CTH 87089900. Following commercial identity test and HSN guidelines, tribunal found these components were specifically identifiable as door handles, integral to vehicle body per Section XVII Note 3 and HSN Explanatory Note B. Addition of plastic material for affixation did not alter principal use. Rule 2(a) of GIR supported classification as finished door handles despite incomplete state. Differential duty upheld with interest, following Supreme Court's compensatory interest principle in Pratibha Processors case. Appeal dismissed. en-us Wed, 19 Feb 2025 08:42:05 +0530 Wed, 19 Feb 2025 08:42:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85850 CESTAT ruled on classification dispute regarding imported Cap Sub Assembly for Door Outside Handle. Appellant's goods, declared as door handles in Bills of Entry, were determined classifiable under CTH 87082900 (parts and accessories of bodies) rather than CTH 87089900. Following commercial identity test and HSN guidelines, tribunal found these components were specifically identifiable as door handles, integral to vehicle body per Section XVII Note 3 and HSN Explanatory Note B. Addition of plastic material for affixation did not alter principal use. Rule 2(a) of GIR supported classification as finished door handles despite incomplete state. Differential duty upheld with interest, following Supreme Court's compensatory interest principle in Pratibha Processors case. Appeal dismissed. Highlights Customs Wed, 19 Feb 2025 08:42:05 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85850