2012 (12) TMI 110 - AT - Customs

Import - Polybutylene Teraphthalate (BPT) - prayer is that BPT Polyester itself is entitled to exemption granted by Notification No. 28/2006 - Revenue submits that PET and BPT are two different goods. HSN classification brings out PET itself is different good, although belongs to saturated Polyester category. When the legislature did not intend to grant exemption to BPT, they have not used that term in the earlier Notification No. 28/2006-Cus., dated 20-3-2006 Held that - BPT is a member of the Polyester family as per HSN Explanatory Notes - This view is also fortified when Polyester chips is also referring to its member goods in Notification No. 89/89-C.E., dated 1-3-89 as well as Notification No. 40/90-C.E.(N.T.), dated 8-11-90. Notification No. 28/2006-Cus., dated 20-3-2006 exempts polyester chips without specifying other sub-species - it cannot be said that BPT does not belong to the Polyester family - no reason to deny the benefit of exemption to the appellant foe the reasons stated above - appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported goods under Notification No. 28/2006-Cus. for exemption.

In this case, the appellant contended that the imported goods, referred to as BPT, are essentially Polyester chip, falling under the exemption granted by Notification No. 28/2006-Cus. The appellant argued that BPT is a member of the Polyester family, supported by HSN Clarificatory Notes and chemical composition evidence. The appellant highlighted that BPT is recognized as Polyester by various notifications and certificates, making it eligible for the exemption. The appellant criticized the authorities for not testing the goods in recognized laboratories but relied on a favorable report from CIPET. The Tribunal noted that BPT is indeed a member of the Polyester family as per HSN Explanatory Notes and various notifications, including Notification No. 28/2006-Cus., which exempts Polyester chips without specifying sub-species. The Tribunal found no reason to deny the exemption to the appellant based on the classification and composition of the goods, ultimately allowing the appeal.

The key contention revolved around whether BPT should be considered a part of the Polyester family for the purpose of exemption under Notification No. 28/2006-Cus. The appellant argued that BPT is essentially Polyester chip and should be covered by the exemption, supported by HSN Clarificatory Notes and chemical composition evidence. On the other hand, the Revenue representative contended that PET and BPT are distinct goods, and since the term "BPT" was not explicitly mentioned in the notification, it should not be granted the exemption. The Tribunal analyzed the classification based on HSN Explanatory Notes and various notifications, ultimately siding with the appellant's interpretation that BPT is indeed a member of the Polyester family, making it eligible for the exemption.

The Tribunal scrutinized the evidence presented, including the HSN Clarificatory Notes, chemical composition details, notifications, and the CIPET certificate. The appellant's argument was supported by these pieces of evidence, demonstrating that BPT should be considered a type of Polyester chip entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 28/2006-Cus. The Tribunal also criticized the Revenue for not conducting tests in recognized laboratories but relied on the CIPET report provided by the appellant. Despite this, the Tribunal found the evidence compelling enough to establish that BPT falls within the Polyester family and should be granted the exemption as per the notification. Hence, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the classification and composition of the imported goods in question.