<?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>2000 (11) TMI 148 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45887</link>
    <description>An industrial stapling machine imported by a garment manufacturer under an REP licence was held to fall within the Import and Export Policy, 1983-84, because the policy had to be read in light of its export-replenishment object and Appendix 17 expressly permitted industrial stapling machines for garments. The machine was used in the manufacturing process for affixing slips, marking pieces, and sealing or packing garments for export, so its actual use supported classification as industrial for policy purposes. Customs tariff references to office machines and the principal-purpose rule in Note 5 of Chapter 84 did not govern the policy meaning. The Tribunal&#039;s contrary view was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 13:37:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84414" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (11) TMI 148 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45887</link>
      <description>An industrial stapling machine imported by a garment manufacturer under an REP licence was held to fall within the Import and Export Policy, 1983-84, because the policy had to be read in light of its export-replenishment object and Appendix 17 expressly permitted industrial stapling machines for garments. The machine was used in the manufacturing process for affixing slips, marking pieces, and sealing or packing garments for export, so its actual use supported classification as industrial for policy purposes. Customs tariff references to office machines and the principal-purpose rule in Note 5 of Chapter 84 did not govern the policy meaning. The Tribunal&#039;s contrary view was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45887</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>