9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Classification of imported product - Levaform S.I. Silicone Emulsion under Customs Tariff Act, 1975
The judgment pertains to the classification of the product Levaform S.I. Silicone Emulsion imported by the appellants. The question at hand is whether the product should be classified under Heading No. 39.01/06 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as determined by the lower authorities, or under Heading No. 34.01/07(2) as claimed by the appellants. The appellants did not appear for the hearing, and no communication seeking an adjournment was received. Consequently, the Departmental Representative presented the case, referring to a previous order in Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Madras. In that case, the issue was the classification of Silicone Emulsion under Heading No. 34.01/07(2) instead of the classification under Heading No. 39.01/06 as contended by the customs authorities. The Tribunal had ruled in the cited case that Silicone Emulsion used as a mould release agent falls under Heading No. 39.01/06, similar to the present case. Member H.R. Syiem delivered a separate order emphasizing that a mould release agent containing silicone oils in an aqueous emulsion does not fall under Chapter 39, which covers Artificial Resins and Plastic Materials. The order discussed the application of Note 2 of Chapter 39 and highlighted that the mould release agent preparation, not being produced by chemical synthesis, should not be classified under Chapter 39. Drawing parallels with other products like adhesives, paints, water treatment chemicals, and dental waxes, the order concluded that the correct classification for the mould release preparation is 34.01/07(2) based on its lubricating/release properties. The judgment, therefore, upholds the classification of the Levaform S.I. Silicone Emulsion under Heading No. 39.01/06 of the Customs Tariff Schedule, in line with the previous ruling and the analysis provided by Member H.R. Syiem. The decision is based on the nature of the product as a mould release agent and its properties, leading to the rejection of the appeal due to non-representation by the appellants during the hearing.
|
