<?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 (12) TMI 1624 - CUSTOMS AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784084</link>
    <description>Clutch Master Cylinder and Concentric Slave Cylinder were held not classifiable as linear acting hydraulic cylinders under Heading 8412 because their essential function was clutch actuation in motor vehicles, not conversion of hydraulic energy into linear motion. Applying Rule 1 of the General Rules for Interpretation, Section XVII notes and the Explanatory Notes, the goods were placed under Heading 8708 as motor vehicle parts, specifically CTI 87089300, since Note 2(e) to Section XVII did not exclude them on the facts. The confidentiality request was rejected because the ruling did not disclose sensitive proprietary information and the material was already substantially in the public domain.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Dec 2025 16:53:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=874466" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 1624 - CUSTOMS AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784084</link>
      <description>Clutch Master Cylinder and Concentric Slave Cylinder were held not classifiable as linear acting hydraulic cylinders under Heading 8412 because their essential function was clutch actuation in motor vehicles, not conversion of hydraulic energy into linear motion. Applying Rule 1 of the General Rules for Interpretation, Section XVII notes and the Explanatory Notes, the goods were placed under Heading 8708 as motor vehicle parts, specifically CTI 87089300, since Note 2(e) to Section XVII did not exclude them on the facts. The confidentiality request was rejected because the ruling did not disclose sensitive proprietary information and the material was already substantially in the public domain.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784084</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>