2004 (3) TMI 501 - Commissioner - Customs

Issues:
Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff

Analysis:
1. The case involved the classification of imported goods declared as "Quilt cover" by M/s. Shoetex Fabrics. The goods were examined, and the Textile Committee's testing report identified them as 'Knitted and Pile Polyester Fabrics.' The appellants classified the goods under CTH 6321090 and CETH 630200, while the adjudicating authority classified them under CTH 60019200, considering them as knitted fabrics of man-made fiber containing short pile. The authority relied on Note 7 to Section XI of Customs Tariff to define the term 'made up.'

2. After reviewing various test reports and technical opinions, the adjudicating authority concluded that the goods should be classified under CTH 6001.9200 and CETH 6001.92, which was challenged in the appeal.

3. During the hearing, the appellant's advocate reiterated their points and submitted copies of the Tariff in their favor. They argued that the goods should be assessed under Chapter 63 based on the opinions of technical bodies supporting their classification.

4. The import documents described the goods as "Quilt cover" under Heading 630210.90, but the adjudicating authority, citing Note 7 to Section XI of the Customs Tariff, excluded the goods from the category of 'made ups,' leading to a different classification.

5. The appellants presented technical opinions from various bodies, including the Textile Committee, supporting their classification under Chapter 63. The Textile Committee's reports provided differing opinions on whether the goods should be considered 'made up' or not, creating uncertainty in classification.

6. The Commissioner noted the conflicting opinions from the Textile Committee and other technical bodies, emphasizing the need for a harmonized construction in such cases. Referring to a Supreme Court decision, the Commissioner highlighted the importance of giving the benefit of doubt to the assessee when multiple opinions exist.

7. The Commissioner considered a letter from the Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane, stating that the quilt cover sample could be classified under Heading 63.04 of the Central Excise Tariff. However, the Commissioner disregarded this evidence, emphasizing the disparity between Customs and Central Excise classifications based on the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN).

8. The appellant's reliance on the Tariff Classification of quilt covers under Heading 6302.22 was dismissed by the adjudicating authority, leading to a discussion on the composition of the goods and their classification under the Customs Tariff.

9. The adjudicating authority suggested classifying the goods as 'short pile' under Heading 60001 9200, arguing that the quilt cover could be converted into piled fabric with broader utility. The Commissioner found these arguments speculative and not applicable based on the HSN explanatory notes.

10. There was a dispute over whether the imported goods amounted to assembled items, with references to dictionary definitions. However, the Commissioner relied on expert reports and Central Excise views to classify the goods under Heading 630210.90, setting aside the Order-in-Original and allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The Commissioner also cited relevant Tribunal decisions in support of the appellant's position.

← Previous Next →