<?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>2003 (1) TMI 162 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51832</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the importers in a case involving the classification of &quot;pocket brick games&quot; under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 95.03. The goods were deemed hand-operated toys, not fitting the description of articles for funfair, table, or parlour games under CTH 95.04. As a result, the Tribunal held that no Additional Customs Duty (CVD) was payable by the importers for the goods classified under CTH 95.03. Additionally, the Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority&#039;s decision on valuation, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s application for stay and setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) orders on the classification dispute.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:50:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90310" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (1) TMI 162 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51832</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the importers in a case involving the classification of &quot;pocket brick games&quot; under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 95.03. The goods were deemed hand-operated toys, not fitting the description of articles for funfair, table, or parlour games under CTH 95.04. As a result, the Tribunal held that no Additional Customs Duty (CVD) was payable by the importers for the goods classified under CTH 95.03. Additionally, the Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority&#039;s decision on valuation, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s application for stay and setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) orders on the classification dispute.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51832</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>