https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784184 The dominant issue was tariff classification of (i) an iron planter basket fitted with a moulded coir liner, and (ii) the coir liner when exported separately. Applying GIR 3(b) to the composite good, the authority held that GIR 2(a) was inapplicable as the article was complete, and the essential character was imparted by the base metal basket, which was a finished ornamental/utilitarian article rather than a "part of general use" under Section XV; accordingly, the composite planter basket was classifiable under CTH 8306.29.90. For the standalone liner, the authority treated it as a "made-up" textile article under Note 7 to Section XI due to shaping/moulding and latex treatment, and, not being covered elsewhere, classified it under residual Heading 6307; accordingly, it was classifiable under CTH 6307.90.99. en-us Mon, 05 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Dec 2025 09:29:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784184 The dominant issue was tariff classification of (i) an iron planter basket fitted with a moulded coir liner, and (ii) the coir liner when exported separately. Applying GIR 3(b) to the composite good, the authority held that GIR 2(a) was inapplicable as the article was complete, and the essential character was imparted by the base metal basket, which was a finished ornamental/utilitarian article rather than a "part of general use" under Section XV; accordingly, the composite planter basket was classifiable under CTH 8306.29.90. For the standalone liner, the authority treated it as a "made-up" textile article under Note 7 to Section XI due to shaping/moulding and latex treatment, and, not being covered elsewhere, classified it under residual Heading 6307; accordingly, it was classifiable under CTH 6307.90.99. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 05 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784184