9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Classification of imported goods for customs duty assessment under different headings; Determination of whether goods are predominantly rubber manufacture or textile article; Interpretation of exclusion notes in Customs Tariff for classification.
In this case, the Appellants imported Darex Versaprint Blankets for use in textile printing machinery and sought re-assessment of the goods' customs duty classification. The goods were initially assessed under Heading 40.05/16(1) as a rubber manufacture, but the Appellants claimed they should be classified under Heading 59.16/17 as a textile article commonly used in machinery. The Assistant Collector rejected their claim, stating the goods were predominantly rubber manufacture. The Appellate Collector also rejected the claim based on exclusion notes in the Customs Tariff. The Appellants argued before the Tribunal that the goods were an essential part of textile printing machinery and should be classified under Heading 84.40. They contended that the goods were not entirely made of rubber and should not fall under Chapter 40. However, they lacked evidence to support this claim during the hearing. The Department's representative relied on exclusion notes to assert that the goods were predominantly rubber. The Tribunal analyzed the composition of the goods, noting they were a composite material of rubber and textile fabrics. The Tribunal agreed with the Department's representative that the essential character of the goods came from rubber, based on evidence from the foreign supplier's letter and catalogue. The Tribunal concluded that the goods fell under Heading 40.05/16(1) as an article of rubber, not textiles, due to the predominance of rubber in their composition. The Department argued that exclusion notes in the Customs Tariff, specifically Note 1(a) to Section XVI, excluded goods like unhardened vulcanized rubber used on machinery from machinery chapters. The Appellants relied on exclusion Note 2(e) to Chapter 40, which pertained to bonded fibre fabrics coated with rubber, but the Tribunal found this note inapplicable to the subject goods made from canvas cloth. The Department also cited the Proviso below Note 2(f) to Chapter 40, which related to articles of expanded rubber combined with textile fabric, but the Tribunal determined this exception did not apply to the subject goods. The Appellants' argument that the goods were not entirely made of rubber was refuted by the Tribunal, which pointed out that the goods fell under Heading 40.05/16 as per exclusion Note 1(a) to Section XVI. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the appeal and affirming the classification of the goods under Heading 40.05/16(1) for customs duty assessment.
|
