9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Classification of imported rubber diaphragm for a textile printing machine under Customs Tariff Act. 2. Applicability of exclusion notes in determining the classification of the goods. 3. Interpretation of Section notes and Chapter notes in the Customs Tariff. 4. Validity of the Research Association's certificate in establishing the composition of the rubber diaphragm. 5. Assessment of goods under the appropriate heading based on material composition. Analysis: 1. The appellants imported a rubber diaphragm for a textile printing machine and sought re-assessment under a lower rate, arguing that the goods were an essential part of the machine. The Department assessed the goods under heading 40.05/16(1) as a rubber manufacture. The appellants contended that the goods should be assessed under heading 84.40 based on their function in the machine. The Tribunal examined the sample of the diaphragm and noted the appellants' arguments regarding the specific design and purpose of the diaphragm in the machine. 2. The Department's Representative argued against the re-assessment, stating that the goods were correctly assessed under heading 40.05/16(1) and could not be considered as hardened rubber. He pointed out discrepancies regarding the Research Assistant's certificate date and the clearance date of the goods. The Representative emphasized that exclusion notes in the Customs Tariff excluded certain parts from machinery chapters, supporting the initial assessment of the goods. 3. The Tribunal analyzed the Customs Tariff provisions and noted that while the appellants sought assessment under machinery headings, specific exclusion notes determined the classification based on material composition. They highlighted Note 1(a) to Section XVI, which excluded un-hardened vulcanized rubber articles used in machinery from machinery chapters. The Tribunal explained the significance of section notes and chapter notes in determining the scope of classification within the Tariff. 4. The validity of the Research Association's certificate was questioned by both parties. The Tribunal observed that the certificate did not specify the goods tested for hardness and could not be conclusively linked to the rubber diaphragm in question. The certificate's date also raised doubts about its relevance to the clearance of the goods. The Tribunal relied on its own observation of the diaphragm's elasticity to determine the material composition. 5. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Department's assessment under heading 40.05/16(1) based on the exclusion note 1(a) to Section XVI, which excluded un-hardened vulcanized rubber articles used in machinery from machinery chapters. Despite being a part of the textile printing machine, the rubber diaphragm was deemed to fall under this specific classification. The appeal was rejected, affirming the initial assessment of the goods. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision emphasized the application of exclusion notes and material composition in determining the classification of goods under the Customs Tariff, highlighting the importance of specific provisions over general principles in such assessments.
|
