|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 472 Records
-
1998 (9) TMI 287
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled that printed catch covers for medicines are classified under CET sub-heading 4819.12. The decision was based on previous cases and upheld the classification for the period from 28-2-1986 to 28-2-1988 under sub-heading 4819.13, and subsequently under sub-heading 4819.12. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
-
1998 (9) TMI 286
Issues:
Challenge to orders disallowing Modvat credit on duty paid on input; Allegations in show cause notices regarding invoices and Modvat credit availed.
Analysis:
The appellant challenged separate orders dismissing appeals against disallowance of Modvat credit on duty paid on furnace oil used for manufacturing cement. Show cause notices raised five allegations: absence of "duplicate for transporter" on input documents, lack of date and time of removal, non-conformity with Rule 57GG, missing serial numbers of PLA debit entry, and absence of value in words on invoices. The first allegation regarding "duplicate for transporter" was discussed extensively. The requirement under Rule 52A was analyzed, emphasizing the need for the copy handed over to the transporter to claim Modvat credit. The court suggested verifying each invoice for indications of being issued to the transporter. The second charge of missing date and time on invoices was dismissed as the provided details related to goods removal. The third charge regarding non-conformity with Notification No. 33/94 lacked specifics to reject Modvat credit. The fourth charge of missing serial numbers of PLA debit entry was refuted as all invoices reportedly contained those details. The last charge of not showing value in words on invoices was deemed irrelevant as no rule mandated it. Ultimately, only the issue of invoices not being duplicate copies for the transporter survived. The court set aside the orders, remanding the cases for invoice verification and fresh adjudication, granting the appellant a personal hearing opportunity. Consequently, the appeals were allowed.
-
1998 (9) TMI 285
Issues: Classification of imported goods under Chapter sub-heading 6603.90 or 6307.90, applicability of specific license requirement, confiscation of goods, imposition of penalty, consistency in classification practice, bona fide conduct of the appellant.
Classification Issue:
The appellant, engaged in umbrella manufacturing, imported nylon cloth panels, facing classification disputes under Chapter sub-headings 6603.90 and 6307.90. The appellant argued for classification under 6603.90 based on Chapter Note 2, while the department cited HSN Explanatory Notes supporting classification under 63.07 due to the panels' characteristics. The Tribunal analyzed the definitions of "made-up" in Chapter 63 and the classifications under Chapter 66, ultimately determining the panels as "made-up" textile articles, falling under 63.07.
Specific License Requirement:
The Commissioner imposed penalties and confiscation due to the absence of a specific license for goods classified under 6307.90. The appellant contended a consistent practice of classifying under 6603.90, accepted by Customs authorities until a recent change. The appellant's belief in proper classification under 66.03 was supported by past practices, the Trade's understanding, and subsequent policy changes allowing OGL imports. The Tribunal noted the appellant's bona fide conduct and the Trade's consistent belief in the classification under 66.03, leading to the conclusion that the appellant acted in good faith without intent to contravene the law.
Confiscation and Penalty Imposition:
The Tribunal considered the appellant's justifications, consistent practices, and the Trade's understanding, concluding that the Commissioner should have refrained from confiscation and penalty imposition. Citing precedents like Radhey Shyam Ratanlal and Ingersoll Rand cases, the Tribunal emphasized the appellant's bona fide conduct and the Trade's shared belief in the proper classification under 66.03. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals based on the appellant's genuine conduct and the Trade's consistent understanding of the classification.
-
1998 (9) TMI 284
The Revenue's appeal against the Commissioner (Appeal's) order was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, CALCUTTA. The Tribunal upheld the decision to approve the contract prices declared by the manufacturers, stating that the goods were sold to M/s. Clive Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. and the delivery to M/s. Raymond Cement Works did not affect the assessable value.
-
1998 (9) TMI 283
Issues:
1. Validity of service of show cause notice.
2. Applicability of Notification No. 230/77-C.E.
Issue 1: Validity of service of show cause notice
The case involved a dispute regarding the service of a show cause notice dated 17-7-1985 on the appellant firm or its partner. The Department claimed that the notice was served personally on the wife of the partner, who acknowledged to pass it on to her husband. The appellants contested this service as inadequate. The adjudicating authority confirmed the service based on the acknowledgment from the partner's wife. The Tribunal analyzed the situation, citing Rule 204 of Central Excise Rules, emphasizing that if a notice is duly received by a person's wife, it can be considered as received by the addressee. The Tribunal concluded that the notice was validly served, rejecting the appellants' argument of non-service as a delay tactic. Consequently, the adjudication proceeded ex parte due to the appellants not raising any other points before the authority.
Issue 2: Applicability of Notification No. 230/77-C.E.
The appellant contended that their fabric, being 100% cotton and unprocessed, was exempt under Notification No. 230/77-C.E. dated 15-7-1977. They argued that the fabric did not fall under the proviso of the notification, which excluded certain categories of cotton fabrics. The appellant highlighted that the notification required both conditions of the proviso to be satisfied for denial of benefits. They criticized the adjudicating authority for not considering the applicability of this notification. In response, the JDR argued that the appellants focused only on the technicality of non-service of notice and should not be allowed to argue on merits at this stage. The Tribunal noted that the appellants had not replied except on the issue of notice service. Considering the importance of the notification to the case, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority. The appellants were granted the opportunity to file a reply to the show cause notice on merits within two months for a fresh decision based on principles of natural justice.
In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of the validity of the show cause notice service and the applicability of Notification No. 230/77-C.E. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the notice service, rejecting the appellants' argument. However, it remanded the case to the adjudicating authority to consider the applicability of the notification and allow the appellants to present their case on merits. The decision emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and thorough consideration of legal provisions in excise duty matters.
-
1998 (9) TMI 282
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi heard the appeal of M/s. P & B Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. regarding the disallowance of higher notional credit on bulk drugs. The Tribunal found that the Appellants were not eligible for notional credit as the rate of duty applicable to bulk drugs was 5%, making any notional credit higher than the actual duty paid. Therefore, the appeal was rejected.
-
1998 (9) TMI 281
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 208/81-Cus regarding exemption for life-saving equipment components.
2. Whether defibrillator capacitors imported by the appellants qualify for duty exemption under the notification.
3. Exclusion of specific components of defibrillators under the notification.
Issue 1: Interpretation of Notification No. 208/81-Cus:
The appeal challenged the denial of duty exemption under Notification No. 208/81-Cus for imported defibrillator capacitors, arguing that the exclusion of components should not defeat the intention of granting exemption to life-saving equipment. The appellants contended that the notification should be interpreted to further the cause of justice. They emphasized that excluding essential parts would render the exemption meaningless. The Collector (Appeals) held that the exclusion clause encompassed specific components listed under Sl. No. (i) to (iv) under the heading "Life Saving Equipments," and these components were covered by the exclusion clause.
Issue 2: Qualification for Duty Exemption:
The appellants imported defibrillator capacitors and claimed they were eligible for duty exemption under Notification No. 208/81-Cus as life-saving equipment components. However, the Assistant Collector rejected this claim, stating that the capacitors were excluded from the benefit of the notification. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision, emphasizing that the exclusion clause covered specific components of defibrillators, including capacitors, which were essential parts for the functioning of defibrillators.
Issue 3: Exclusion of Specific Components:
The notification excluded certain components of defibrillators, such as polyester/paper discharge capacitors, discharge/damp relay, connector, and high voltage retractable flexible wire. The respondent argued that the exclusion of these components, including capacitors, was clear from the scheme of the notification. The exclusion clause specified items (i) to (iv) as components not eligible for duty exemption, indicating that the intention was to exclude these specific parts from the benefits of the notification.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision denying duty exemption to the imported defibrillator capacitors under Notification No. 208/81-Cus. The judgment emphasized that the exclusion of specific components, including capacitors, was clear under the notification's scheme. Despite arguments regarding the importance of these components for defibrillators' functioning, the Tribunal found no justification to grant the exemption based on the notification's provisions. The judgment highlighted the need to interpret notifications according to their explicit terms and exclusions, even if certain components were essential for the equipment's operation.
-
1998 (9) TMI 280
Issues:
- Modvat credit on capital goods
- Interpretation of Rule 57T
- Time limit for filing declaration
- Effect of loan on eligibility for Modvat credit
Modvat credit on capital goods:
The case involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of the assessee to claim Modvat credit on a Thread Grinding Machine manufactured in their own factory for their own use. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) allowed the credit, emphasizing that the capital goods were not loaned, leased, or hire purchased at the time of filing the declaration and duty payment. The Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the assessee was entitled to the credit as per the prevailing rules and notifications.
Interpretation of Rule 57T:
The Tribunal analyzed Rule 57T(4) to determine the eligibility criteria for Modvat credit on capital goods. It was established that the assessee had followed the prescribed procedures by filing the declaration and paying duty within the specified timeline. The Tribunal emphasized that the exclusion clause for credit on loaned capital goods was rescinded by Notification 26/94, allowing the assessee to claim the credit upon taking a loan on the machinery.
Time limit for filing declaration:
There was a contention regarding the timeline for filing the declaration related to the Modvat credit. The department argued that the declaration filed on 17-10-1994 was beyond three months from the duty payment date of 29-3-1994, making the assessee ineligible for the credit. However, the Tribunal considered the date of loan (19-7-1994) as the relevant date for filing the declaration, as per the notifications in force, and concluded that the declaration was timely filed within three months from taking the loan.
Effect of loan on eligibility for Modvat credit:
The crucial aspect of the case revolved around the effect of taking a loan on the eligibility of the assessee to claim Modvat credit. The Tribunal clarified that the rescission of the exclusion clause by Notification 26/94 removed any impediment for the assessee to avail the credit upon taking the loan. By filing a fresh declaration within the stipulated timeline from the loan date, the assessee complied with the requirements under Rule 57T(4) and was deemed eligible for the credit.
In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Collector (Appeals)'s decision in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal found no illegality in the impugned order, emphasizing the compliance with Rule 57T(4) and the relevant notifications regarding Modvat credit eligibility. The decision highlighted the significance of the loan date and the absence of any exclusion clause for loaned capital goods in determining the assessee's entitlement to the credit.
-
1998 (9) TMI 279
Issues:
Importation of a car during the Gulf war from Kuwait, benefit claimed under Notification No. 258/90-Cus., non-fulfillment of bond conditions, show cause notice for non-production of CCP, confiscation of car, penalty imposition, denial of notification benefit, appeal against lower appellate authority's decision.
Analysis:
The appellant, an Indian repatriate from Kuwait during the Gulf war, imported a car and claimed benefits under Notification No. 258/90-Cus. The appellant filed a Bill of Entry for the car on 4-1-1991 and fulfilled certain conditions, including informing the Asstt. Collector about his residential address. However, the appellant was informed in February 1993 that the CCP was not required due to changes in import regulations. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued for non-production of CCP, leading to confiscation of the car and imposition of penalties.
The Customs authorities found that the appellant had left for a job abroad, leaving the car with his brother. Despite the brother's statement that the car had not been transferred, a show cause notice was issued proposing confiscation, penalties, and denial of notification benefits. The adjudicating authority confiscated the car for non-production of CCP and parting with the car, imposing fines and penalties on both individuals.
On appeal, the lower appellate authority set aside the penalty on the brother but confirmed the penalties on the appellant. The appellate tribunal, after reviewing the facts and statements, concluded that the appellant had not parted with the car as per the bond conditions. Therefore, the benefit of Notification No. 258/90-Cus. could not be denied, and the duty demand on the car was not sustainable.
The tribunal acknowledged that the appellant failed to produce the CCP, constituting a contravention. However, considering the circumstances, the tribunal reduced the redemption fine and personal penalty imposed on the appellant. The tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal against the brother and set aside the duty demand, reducing the fine and penalty on the appellant based on the overall facts and circumstances of the case.
In conclusion, the tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal against the brother, set aside the duty demand, reduced the fine in lieu of car confiscation, and decreased the personal penalty imposed on the appellant. The appeal of the appellant was disposed of accordingly, with adjustments made to the fines and penalties.
-
1998 (9) TMI 278
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi allowed the appeal of the appellants regarding the duty on destroyed molasses. The Tribunal set aside the order requiring duty payment on the waste product resulting from auto combustion, stating it was not molasses and duty should be refunded to the appellants.
-
1998 (9) TMI 277
The Department appealed against the classification of handloom reeds as "strips." The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld the classification based on the definition in the Central Excise Tariff. The appeal was dismissed as the product did not conform to the tariff definition.
-
1998 (9) TMI 276
Issues: Appeal against Order-in-Original denying Modvat credit for Metal Containers; Interpretation of Modvat credit rules.
In the present case, the appellant challenged the Order-in-Original denying them Modvat credit for Metal Containers used in receiving their input, calcium carbide. The appellant argued that the adjudicating authority erred in relying on a specific Board instruction and referred to a previous Order-in-Appeal and a Tribunal judgment supporting their position. After considering both sides' submissions and reviewing the case records, the Tribunal found that Modvat credit is taken based on duty paid on inputs, which includes the value of packing. Citing a previous Tribunal decision, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order.
Editor's Comments:
The Excise Law Times highlighted conflicting decisions by different CEGAT benches regarding duty on discarded packing material used for Modvatable inputs. The West Regional Bench held that such material is not liable to duty upon clearance, while the South Regional Bench initially ruled otherwise. However, the South Regional Bench later aligned with the West Regional Bench's decision, stating that duty is not demandable on discarded packing material used for Modvat inputs. Additionally, the Central Board of Excise and Customs issued a circular clarifying the non-demandability of duty on packing material used for Modvat inputs when cleared from the manufacturing factory.
-
1998 (9) TMI 275
Issues:
1. Change of title due to amalgamation of companies.
2. Reversal of Modvat credit on exempted products.
3. Interpretation of Rule 57H for transitional credit facility.
4. Reversal of credit on inputs for exempted final products.
5. Adjudication of pending application under Rule 57H.
Issue 1: Change of title due to amalgamation of companies
The appeal involved a request for a change in title from M/s. Brook Bond Lipton (I) Ltd. to M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. following an amalgamation as per High Court orders. The title change was granted accordingly to reflect the new entity.
Issue 2: Reversal of Modvat credit on exempted products
The respondents were manufacturing prepared food items falling under specific sub-headings and were availing Modvat credit. However, the products became exempt from duty under certain notifications. The jurisdictional authority asked for the reversal of Modvat credit, leading to a show-cause notice for the same. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that since the respondents had availed and utilized the credit properly as per rules, there was no basis to reverse the Modvat credit, overturning the Dy. Commissioner's order.
Issue 3: Interpretation of Rule 57H for transitional credit facility
The respondents had applied for transitional credit under Rule 57H, which was partially allowed with some part still pending. The Dy. Commissioner considered the application independent of the duty liability, but the Commissioner (Appeals) emphasized that the respondents acted in compliance with the law in availing credits. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, highlighting the proper utilization of credits by the respondents.
Issue 4: Reversal of credit on inputs for exempted final products
The Department argued for the reversal of credit on inputs for finished products that became exempted. Citing a judgment, the Department contended that such credit must be reversed. However, the respondents referred to a Tribunal judgment and expressed willingness for the Department's appeal to direct the Dy. Commissioner to decide on the pending application under Rule 57H before enforcing the demand.
Issue 5: Adjudication of pending application under Rule 57H
The appeal's prayer was focused on adjusting the demand against the transitional credit claimed by the respondents in their Rule 57H application. The Tribunal acknowledged the need for adjustment and disposed of the appeal in favor of the respondents, emphasizing the importance of justice by acceding to the prayer for adjusting the demand against the transitional credit claimed.
-
1998 (9) TMI 274
Issues: Classification of 'Canofile 510' machine under Tariff Heading 84.71 or 84.72, Confiscation of goods, Reduction of redemption fine
Classification Issue:
The main issue in the present appeal was the classification of the 'Canofile 510' machine under Tariff Heading 84.71 or 84.72. The Appellants argued for classification under 84.71, while the Additional Commissioner of Customs classified it under 84.72. The Adjudicating Officer observed that the machine did not meet the conditions of Heading 84.71 as it was not freely programmable and could not make arithmetical computations. Consequently, the machine was classified under Heading 84.72 as an "other office machine." The Adjudicating Officer also noted that the machine required a specific import license for clearance, which the importer failed to produce. The Catalogues presented by the Appellants showed that the machine was for document management, saving time, space, and money, but did not meet the definition of an automatic data processing machine under Chapter Note 5A(a) to Chapter 84. The Tribunal held that the machine fell under Tariff Heading 84.72 based on the HSN Explanatory Notes, which excluded fixed program machines from Tariff entry 84.71. Despite a clarification from the Department of Electronics favoring 84.71 classification, the Tribunal upheld the classification under 84.72, as the competing entries were not considered by the Appellants.
Confiscation Issue:
Regarding the confiscation of goods, it was acknowledged that the Custom House had a practice of assessing similar machines under Tariff Heading 84.71. Considering this practice, a lenient view was required. The Adjudicating Authority reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 1.5 Lakhs to Rs. 50,000, and the personal penalty was set aside by the lower appellate authority. The Tribunal confirmed the impugned order with the modification in the redemption fine.
In conclusion, the judgment primarily focused on the classification of the 'Canofile 510' machine under Tariff Heading 84.71 or 84.72. The Tribunal upheld the classification under 84.72 based on the machine's characteristics and the HSN Explanatory Notes, despite a clarification from the Department of Electronics favoring 84.71. Additionally, the Tribunal addressed the confiscation issue, considering the Custom House practice and reducing the redemption fine.
-
1998 (9) TMI 273
Issues:
1. Request for adjournment of appeals due to counsel's unavailability.
2. Allegation of related party transactions and pricing in the manufacture of wires and cables.
Issue 1: Request for adjournment of appeals
The appellant requested an adjournment of the appeals citing their counsel's unavailability due to prior commitments. The tribunal, however, rejected the request as they deemed the reasons provided were not valid for adjournment in old cases. The appellant's assistant declined to present any arguments, and the tribunal proceeded to hear the respondent's representative and reviewed the case documents.
Issue 2: Allegation of related party transactions and pricing
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing wires and cables, sold a significant portion of its products to another entity, DSSL, which further sold the goods to wholesale dealers. The remaining products were sold to industrial consumers. The dispute arose when authorities alleged that DSSL was acting as a selling agent for the appellant, leading to related party transactions under Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The authorities issued show cause notices proposing to base the assessable value on the price charged by DSSL to wholesalers. The appellant contested these allegations, arguing for acceptance of their declared price. The tribunal examined the agreement between the parties and found insufficient evidence to establish DSSL as a selling agent or related party. The tribunal noted the lack of details in the notices regarding the relationship between the companies or the individuals involved in their operations. Additionally, the tribunal observed that the price disparity between DSSL and industrial consumers was justified due to the different buying capacities and quantities involved. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the orders approving the price lists based on DSSL's pricing and allowed the appeals.
In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the request for adjournment and ruled in favor of the appellant by rejecting the allegations of related party transactions and directing the assessable value to be based on the appellant's declared price rather than DSSL's pricing to wholesalers.
-
1998 (9) TMI 272
Issues:
1. Misdeclaration of car details in the Bill of Entry.
2. Confiscation of the car and imposition of fine and penalty.
3. Requirement of possession for a specified period under Import Export Policy.
4. Applicability of depreciation rate for valuation of the imported car.
Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) regarding the misdeclaration of a Mercedes Benz Saloon car imported under transfer of residence. The car was declared as a 1980 model 200D in the Bill of Entry, but investigations revealed it was manufactured in 1983 with a 2400 cc engine, not registered in the appellant's name in UAE.
2. The Additional Commissioner of Customs confiscated the car, offering redemption on payment of a fine and imposing a penalty for importing the car with incorrect information. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, stating the appellant failed to comply with the possession condition and had fabricated documents. The appellant argued the engine was replaced in 1983, and the car was with their family in Abu Dhabi for an extended period, denying any misdeclaration.
3. The appellant's advocate contended that the possession, custody, and use of the car did not necessitate registration in the user's name, citing a Board's Circular for depreciation valuation. The Department argued the car was purchased and exported on the same day, not meeting the possession requirement. The Tribunal found no evidence of the car being in the appellant's use for over a year as per the Import Export Policy.
4. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation but allowed a higher depreciation rate of 70% instead of 46% for the car's valuation, considering the car's actual make and import date. Relying on previous decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the increased depreciation rate could be applied retroactively, providing relief to the appellant in the valuation aspect.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the car but allowed a higher depreciation rate for valuation, emphasizing the importance of accurate declaration and compliance with import policies. The appeal was disposed of with these terms.
-
1998 (9) TMI 271
The appellate tribunal in New Delhi decided on the classification of air bubble sheets manufactured by the appellants. They followed a previous order and classified the product under CET sub-heading 3923.90, setting aside the impugned order. The appeal of the assessees was allowed.
-
1998 (9) TMI 270
The appeal was against the order confirming duty demand based on classification list approval. M/s. Frezco Corporation argued that their products should be classified under sub-heading 3003.30, not 3304.00 as cosmetics. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants, changing the classification to 3003.30, thus nullifying the duty demand.
-
1998 (9) TMI 269
The case involved alleged removal of molasses to Kachcha Pit without duty payment. Appellants contested duty demand based on time limitation and jurisdiction of issuing authority. Tribunal agreed with the appellant, ruling the demand as barred by time and issued by an incompetent officer. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
-
1998 (9) TMI 268
Issues:
Classification of the product "Ossidos" under Tariff Item 1B or Tariff Item 14E of the Central Excise Tariff.
Analysis:
1. The main issue in this appeal was the classification of the product "Ossidos" under the Central Excise Tariff. The appellant argued that the product should be classified under Tariff Item 1B as a food supplement, citing various certifications and previous decisions supporting their claim. They emphasized that the product was based on protein and carbohydrates, with added minerals and vitamins for natural growth and nutrition. The appellant also highlighted that similar products had been classified as food supplements under Item 1B in previous cases.
2. The respondent countered by pointing out that "Ossidos" contained therapeutic vitamins and minerals, making it more than just a food supplement. They argued that the product's composition and intended use did not align with the essence of food as required for classification under Tariff Item 1B. The respondent referred to expert opinions and previous decisions where similar products were classified as patent or proprietary medicines under Tariff Item 14E due to their therapeutic properties.
3. The Tribunal considered both parties' submissions and examined the product's composition and certifications. They noted that the Food and Drugs Administration certified that "Ossidos" did not fall under the category of drugs. The Tribunal also highlighted the lack of expert opinion from the Revenue to challenge this certification. They referenced a previous case where a similar product was classified as a food supplement based on trade parlance and commercial understanding, emphasizing the onus on the Revenue to prove classification.
4. In their analysis, the Tribunal relied on precedents and legal interpretations to determine the classification of "Ossidos." They referenced the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and previous decisions involving similar products. The Tribunal also considered the certification from the Food and Drug Administration and the absence of evidence supporting the product being marketed as a drug. Following the legal principles and precedents, the Tribunal concluded that "Ossidos" should be classified under Tariff Item 1B as a food supplement, thereby allowing the appeal.
In conclusion, the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi classified the product "Ossidos" under Tariff Item 1B of the Central Excise Tariff as a food supplement based on the product's composition, certifications, expert opinions, and legal precedents. The decision highlighted the importance of trade parlance, commercial understanding, and expert certifications in determining the classification of products under the Central Excise Tariff.
............
|
9911796707
