1983 (2) TMI 284 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of pipes and fittings made of Haveg 41 material under Customs Tariff Act.
2. Determination of whether the goods should be assessed as articles of asbestos or spare parts of machinery.
3. Classification of the goods as articles of asbestos or plastic/synthetic resin.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of pipes and fittings made of Haveg 41 material under the Customs Tariff Act. The question was whether these goods should be considered as articles of asbestos under Heading 68.01/16(1) or as spare parts of machinery under Heading 84.17(1). The appellants argued for the latter classification based on the materials used and the purpose of the goods.

2. The tribunal carefully considered the matter, examining the manufacturer's catalogue, supplier's certificate, and past classification proceedings. The manufacturer's catalogue described the goods as "Pipe and Fittings," emphasizing their durability and suitability for handling corrosive materials. The appellants highlighted that the goods were only used in a specific machinery for a particular purpose, indicating they were not component parts of machinery but standalone items.

3. The tribunal then addressed the classification of the goods as articles of asbestos or plastic/synthetic resin. The appellants argued that the goods were primarily made of synthetic resin, while the Department relied on the composition of 60% asbestos and 40% resin. Despite the appellants' reluctance to disclose the exact composition, they provided a certificate stating the material was a thermosetting plastic based on phenol-formaldehyde resin and acid-digested asbestos filler. The tribunal concluded that the goods should be classified as articles of plastic/synthetic resin under Heading 39.07, as they did not qualify as parts of machinery under Heading 84.17(1).

4. While determining the classification, the tribunal noted that previous decisions classifying similar goods under different tariff laws were not applicable. The current Customs Tariff Act, 1975, had specific rules for interpretation that guided the classification process. Despite the higher duty leviable under Heading 39.07, the tribunal decided not to reclassify the goods as it was not the Department's original case and the importation had occurred four years prior. The appeal was rejected based on the appellants' claim for reassessment not being maintainable.