https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791841 Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for Interpretation did not support classifying the imported consignments as complete mobile phones. The goods were found to have been imported in disassembled or unassembled condition, and the Chartered Engineer's reports showed that battery, camera, software, testing and other processes were still required before a finished handset could exist. On the record, the material did not establish that the imports possessed the essential character of complete mobile phones. In a classification dispute, the burden remained on the department to justify reclassification, and that burden was not discharged. The goods therefore remained classifiable as mobile phone parts rather than complete phones. en-us Mon, 18 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 May 2026 08:18:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791841 Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for Interpretation did not support classifying the imported consignments as complete mobile phones. The goods were found to have been imported in disassembled or unassembled condition, and the Chartered Engineer's reports showed that battery, camera, software, testing and other processes were still required before a finished handset could exist. On the record, the material did not establish that the imports possessed the essential character of complete mobile phones. In a classification dispute, the burden remained on the department to justify reclassification, and that burden was not discharged. The goods therefore remained classifiable as mobile phone parts rather than complete phones. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 18 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791841