2001 (10) TMI 1097 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Classification of "32 MS Modular Spray Pumps" for Customs purposes

Classification under Tariff Headings:
The appeal involved the classification of "32 MS Modular Spray Pumps" for Customs purposes. The authorities initially classified the item under tariff Heading 9616.10, while the appellants argued for classification under sub-heading 8413.20. However, during the hearing, the consultant representing the appellants suggested that classification under tariff Heading 8424 would be more appropriate.

Interpretation of Relevant Tariff Headings:
The appellant stressed that Chapter 96 is a residuary heading for miscellaneous manufactured articles, with sub-heading 9616 specifically covering scent sprays and similar toilet sprays. The consultant argued that sub-heading 8424 has a broader scope, encompassing various spraying appliances. Additionally, the consultant presented technical drawings and invoices to support the classification under Heading 8424, emphasizing that the product in question was part of a sub-assembly for manufacturing modular pumps.

Analysis of Impugned Orders:
The consultant highlighted discrepancies in the impugned orders, where the classification under 9616 was based on presumptions rather than positive findings. The orders referenced the nature of the item as a pump, suggesting a misclassification under sub-heading 9616. The consultant argued that goods resembling pumps should be classified as such and not as scent sprays. The Tribunal concurred, noting that sub-heading 9616 is specific to scent sprays and does not cover generic goods, thereby setting aside the classification under 9616.

Remand for Fresh Consideration:
Regarding classification under Chapter 84, the Tribunal observed that subsequent imports were classified under 8413.20, as claimed by the appellants. The consultant advocated for classification under 8424, which necessitated a fresh consideration by the lower authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter for reevaluation to determine whether sub-heading 8413 or 8424 would be more appropriate for classification.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved, the interpretations of relevant tariff headings, the critique of impugned orders, and the decision to remand the matter for further consideration.