https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52942 Imported photocopier main frames were treated as parts, not restricted sub-assemblies requiring a licence, because the import policy did not impose a licensing bar and the larger bench position had already resolved the control objection. Classification under Rule 2(a) was rejected because the main frame represented only about 55% to 60% of a photocopier and could not be treated as the complete article. The declared transaction value was also upheld, as there was no allegation of misdeclaration and no concrete basis, such as invoice or bill of entry particulars, to reject value merely on contemporaneous imports. The goods were therefore reassessed as parts on the declared value. en-us Tue, 08 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Oct 2010 16:14:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52942 Imported photocopier main frames were treated as parts, not restricted sub-assemblies requiring a licence, because the import policy did not impose a licensing bar and the larger bench position had already resolved the control objection. Classification under Rule 2(a) was rejected because the main frame represented only about 55% to 60% of a photocopier and could not be treated as the complete article. The declared transaction value was also upheld, as there was no allegation of misdeclaration and no concrete basis, such as invoice or bill of entry particulars, to reject value merely on contemporaneous imports. The goods were therefore reassessed as parts on the declared value. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 08 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52942