1985 (1) TMI 328 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of Chlorosulphonated Polyethylene (Hypalon) under Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
2. Classification of Hypalon under Central Excise Tariff.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Classification under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975

Background and Arguments:
The primary issue is whether Hypalon should be classified under Heading No. 39.01/06 (synthetic resins and plastic materials) or Heading No. 40.01/04 (synthetic rubber) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The appellants argued that Hypalon is synthetic rubber, citing its recognition as such by industry and trade, and its classification by Import Trade Control authorities. They referred to literature and expert opinions indicating that Hypalon could be vulcanized with sulfur, suggesting it is unsaturated.

Legal Framework:
Note 4 to Chapter 40 of the Customs Tariff Act defines "synthetic rubber" as unsaturated substances that meet specific criteria regarding vulcanization, elongation, and recovery.

Tribunal's Findings:
The Tribunal noted that the classification under the Customs Tariff Schedule should be based on statutory definitions rather than commercial understanding. The definition in Note 4 requires the substance to be unsaturated.

Evidence and Conclusion:
The Tribunal examined various sources, including literature from Du Pont, the McGraw-Hill Encyclopaedia, and the Kirk-Othmer Encyclopaedia, which described Hypalon as a saturated substance. The Tribunal also considered the appellants' admission before the Appellate Collector and technical opinions, all indicating Hypalon's saturated nature. The Tribunal concluded that Hypalon is a saturated substance and does not meet the statutory definition of synthetic rubber under Chapter 40.

Decision:
Hypalon is classifiable under Heading No. 39.01/06 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as it is a polymerization product and a synthetic resin.

Issue 2: Classification under the Central Excise Tariff

Background and Arguments:
The appellants also contested the classification of Hypalon for the purpose of additional (countervailing) duty under the Central Excise Tariff. They argued that Hypalon should be classified under Item No. 16AA (synthetic rubber) rather than Item No. 15A(1) (synthetic resins and plastic materials).

Legal Framework:
During the relevant period, Item No. 16AA of the Central Excise Tariff covered synthetic rubber without a statutory definition.

Tribunal's Findings:
The Tribunal acknowledged that Hypalon is recognized as synthetic rubber by industry standards and the Import Control authorities. Despite not meeting the Customs Tariff definition, Hypalon qualifies as synthetic rubber under the Central Excise Tariff due to the absence of a statutory definition during the material period.

Decision:
Hypalon is classifiable under Item No. 16AA of the Central Excise Tariff as synthetic rubber. The appellants are entitled to a refund of the excess additional duty collected.

Summary:
The Tribunal held that Hypalon is classifiable under Heading No. 39.01/06 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as a synthetic resin due to its saturated nature, not meeting the statutory definition of synthetic rubber. However, for the purpose of additional duty under the Central Excise Tariff, Hypalon is classified under Item No. 16AA as synthetic rubber, entitling the appellants to a refund of the excess duty collected. The appeals were disposed of with these directions.