<?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>1997 (4) TMI 88 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44593</link>
    <description>Thermographic printing powder was held classifiable under Heading 32.13 of the Indian Customs Tariff Act because the tariff entry was read as covering inks more broadly than conventional writing or printing ink. The product&#039;s functional resemblance to printing ink made Heading 32.13 the more specific and appropriate classification than Heading 32.04/12(i). The Tribunal&#039;s classification was therefore sustained, and the appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2010 10:58:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83122" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (4) TMI 88 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44593</link>
      <description>Thermographic printing powder was held classifiable under Heading 32.13 of the Indian Customs Tariff Act because the tariff entry was read as covering inks more broadly than conventional writing or printing ink. The product&#039;s functional resemblance to printing ink made Heading 32.13 the more specific and appropriate classification than Heading 32.04/12(i). The Tribunal&#039;s classification was therefore sustained, and the appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44593</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>