2007 (5) TMI 33 - AT - Customs

Classification Appellant contended that the imported good (hooks and eye ) classifiable under Heading 8308 of CT but as per department it classifiable under Heading 6212 ibid Held that appellant contention is not correct and said good classifiable under Heading 6212ibid

Summary

Issues involved: Classification of imported goods under different sub-headings, applicability of duty rates, interpretation of Customs Tariff Act.

In this case, the main issue revolves around the classification of imported goods described as "Bra Hook (Stock Lot) Clothing accessories." The appellants claimed the classification under sub-heading 8308.10 chargeable to 30% ad valorem duty, while the Department classified it under sub-heading 6212.10 chargeable to Rs. 30 per piece. The appellant argued that the goods are hooks and eyes used in the manufacture of brassieres, falling under Heading 8308, due to their low price and nature. However, the Department contended that the goods are parts of brassieres as they are hooks and eyes stitched on to a lace, classifying them under Heading 6212. The lower appellate authority noted the admission by the appellants that the goods were Bra Hooks inserted in knitted or crocheted cloth, identifying them as distinct parts of brassieres under Heading 6212.

Upon reviewing the case records and the competing Headings, the Tribunal found that Heading 8308 includes hooks and eyes used for clothing, but the difficulty in classifying the goods under this Heading arises from the fact that the hooks and eyes were imported inserted in cloth, not as standalone items. The sample presented consisted of hooks and eyes tape for brassieres made from cloth tape, which are functional components with specific uses in brassieres manufacturing. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the goods are more appropriately classified as parts of brassieres under Heading 6212, as they can be readily stitched to adjacent parts to create a complete brassiere.

Regarding the duty rates, the Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's argument about the significant price difference between the goods and the high duty rate under Heading 6212. However, it emphasized that the duty rates are set to prevent cheaper textile goods from flooding the market, and the legislative intent is not to impose a high duty on low-cost items like hooks and eye tape for brassieres. The Tribunal suggested that any duty rate anomaly could be addressed through exemption notifications, but the classification of goods should be based on the Customs Tariff Act's terms, Chapter Notes, and Rules of Interpretation, not solely on duty rates.

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the classification of the goods under Heading 6212 and sustaining the impugned orders based on the analysis of the goods' nature, functionality, and legislative intent behind duty rates.