9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Act
Analysis: The appeal in question revolves around the classification of imported goods, specifically 'Weld-on-parts' and 'M.I. thermocouples,' for Customs purposes. The primary issue is whether these goods should be classified under Heading 90.23(i) read with 90.29(i) or 90.28(iv as claimed by the appellants, or under Heading 73.33 C.T.A. as done by the lower authorities. The Assistant Collector of Customs initially rejected the appellants' claim for re-assessment due to lack of supporting documentation and applicability of the appellate order. However, the Collector of Customs (Appeals) in Bombay classified the goods based on Interpretatory Rule 3(a) of the Customs Tariff Act, stating that even though the parts were designed for thermocouples, they should be classified under a specific heading. This led to the present appeal. During the hearing, the appellants' representatives explained the function of Thermocouples, weld-on parts, and clamps. It was clarified that the appellants focused their claim solely on weld-on parts, not on clamps. The weld-on parts were designed for use on thermocouples to ensure temperature uniformity for accurate measurements. The essential function of a thermocouple is temperature measurement, falling under Heading 90.23 for measuring instruments. Weld-on parts, being accessories suitable for thermometers, should be classified under Heading 90.29(1)/90.23(1) as per the nature of their use. The reliance on Rule 3(a) for classification was deemed inappropriate as the weld-on parts were specifically designed for thermocouples, aligning with Heading 90.29. Additionally, previous classifications by the same Customs House supported the classification under Heading 90.29(1)/90.23(1). In light of the arguments presented, the appellants' claim for re-assessment under Heading 90.29(1) read with 90.23(1) for weld-on parts was accepted, while the claim for clamps was rejected due to lack of emphasis. The appeal was partially allowed, leading to a consequential refund for the appellants.
|
