9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Classification of imported methyl parathion technical purity 80% under Heading 3808.10 vs. Heading 29
In this case, the Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the classification of imported methyl parathion technical purity 80%. The Commissioner classified the product under Heading 3808.10, considering a circular issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs and the preferable interpretation under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Revenue appealed on the grounds that the chemical is a well-defined compound not falling under Heading 38, and Chapter Note 1(a)(2) to Chapter 38 does not cover the item due to packaging. They argued for classification under Chapter 29 due to specific headings prevailing over generic ones. The Tribunal found that the chemical, being a known pesticide, should be classified under Heading 38, rejecting the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal analyzed the arguments presented by the Revenue in their appeal. They noted that a well-defined chemical conforming to a specific molecular formula, if recognized as a pesticide or insecticide, can be classified under Heading 3808 or 3808.10. They emphasized that pesticides and insecticides should be understood as defined in the Insecticides Act, 1968. The Tribunal also considered the purity of the chemical, with the imports being 80% pure pesticides of technical grade. They found no justification for considering the impurities in the product as permissible under Chapter 29 for classification purposes. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the classification under Heading 38, as the item imported was recognized as a pesticide and did not meet the criteria for classification under Chapter 29. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the classification of the imported methyl parathion technical purity 80% under Heading 3808.10. They found no errors in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision and upheld the classification under Heading 38 for the known pesticide.
|
