9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2002 (6) TMI 274 - AT - CustomsClassification of goods - Fabrics - Classification - Interpretation of statutes - Taxing statutes
Issues involved: Classification of imported coated fabric under sub-heading 5903.90 or 5407.44 of the Customs Tariff Act.
Details of the judgment: Issue 1: Classification of goods The appellant, an export-oriented unit, imported acrylic coated fabric and silver coated fabric. The goods were initially assessed under sub-heading 5903.09 and allowed for export. However, they were later seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence on the grounds that the fabric did not have a visible coating as required under sub-heading 5903.90. Various tests were conducted by different authorities, with conflicting results on the visibility of the coating. The Adjudicating Authority classified the goods under sub-heading 5407.44 based on the majority of opinions against the importer. Issue 2: Comparison with a similar case The appellant argued that identical goods imported by another party, Vaibhav Textile, were classified under sub-heading 5903.90 despite similar test results. The appellant contended that the Adjudicating Authority did not provide a specific finding on the similarity of the goods imported by both parties. The appellant highlighted previous decisions emphasizing the preference for test reports from Departmental Chemists over outside agencies in product classification. Decision The Tribunal observed that the goods had been tested by the Chemical Examiner, who confirmed the visibility of the coating to the naked eye. The Textile Committee's report on visibility was considered subjective and inconclusive. The Tribunal reiterated the precedence of Departmental test reports over external opinions in classification decisions. It emphasized that the Adjudicating Authority cannot rely solely on the majority of opinions. The Tribunal found that the appellant's case was similar to Vaibhav Textile's import, which was classified differently despite comparable circumstances. Therefore, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, extending the benefit of the doubt and allowing the appeals.
|
