<?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>2004 (6) TMI 224 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53390</link>
    <description>Classification of imported goods depends on their condition at the time of import, not on intended post-import assembly or use. Separate import of old embroidery machines and new Jacquard Control Devices did not amount to a complete computerized embroidery machine presented unassembled under General Interpretative Rule 2(a), so the exemption for computerized embroidery machines was denied. The value of the separate goods could be assessed on the break-up reflected in the importers&#039; own documents. Penalty was set aside because the dispute involved a complex classification issue and the omission was viewed in the context of a bona fide belief and expert examination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Oct 2010 11:40:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91867" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (6) TMI 224 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53390</link>
      <description>Classification of imported goods depends on their condition at the time of import, not on intended post-import assembly or use. Separate import of old embroidery machines and new Jacquard Control Devices did not amount to a complete computerized embroidery machine presented unassembled under General Interpretative Rule 2(a), so the exemption for computerized embroidery machines was denied. The value of the separate goods could be assessed on the break-up reflected in the importers&#039; own documents. Penalty was set aside because the dispute involved a complex classification issue and the omission was viewed in the context of a bona fide belief and expert examination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53390</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>