2007 (6) TMI 27 - AT - Customs

Classification -Appellant contended that the good cleared by him described as beached wood - unedged, steamed classified under SH 4403.92 but as per custom authorities it fall under under Heading 44.07 - Held that the said good fall under SH 4403.92

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Act

Analysis:
1. The appellants imported beech wood described as 'roughly squared' in the invoice and 'unedged and steamed' in the bill of entry, with three different thickness dimensions. Customs authorities found the wood to be roughly sawn lengthwise, leading to a dispute on classification under Heading 44.03 or 44.07.

2. Heading 44.03 covers 'wood in the rough, whether or not stripped of bark or sapwood, or roughly squared', while SH 4403.92 specifically includes beech wood of this description. On the other hand, Heading 44.07 pertains to 'wood sawn or chipped lengthwise' exceeding 6 mm in thickness, with SH 4407.92 covering beech wood under this category.

3. The Commissioner classified the goods under Heading 44.07 based on the examination report indicating the wood was sawn lengthwise. However, the HSN Notes under Heading 44.03 clarify that roughly squared wood resulting from coarse sawing falls under this category, excluding wood cut into planks or beams, which are classified under Heading 44.07 or 44.18.

4. The examination report described the goods as 'roughly sawn wood', aligning with the counsel's argument that the wood should be classified under Heading 44.03 due to coarse sawing. The HSN Notes under Heading 44.07 also support this, indicating that wood roughly squared by coarse sawing falls under Heading 44.03.

5. The HSN Notes further emphasize that wood under Heading 44.07 must have accurate dimensions like uniform thickness, which 'rough sawing' cannot achieve. The examination report's description of 'roughly sawn wood' corresponds to 'coarse sawing' mentioned in the HSN Notes under Heading 44.07.

6. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner's decision was unsustainable, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal in favor of the appellants. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 29-6-2007.