2007 (8) TMI 66 - AT - Customs

Classification - Revenue contended that the imported incense sticks of length 8 to 9 were classifiable under Heading 4421 90 90 attracting 16% CVD instead of Heading 3707 41 00 attracting nil rate of CVD - Held that incense sticks classifiable under Heading 3707 41 00

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported goods under different headings, challenge to provisional assessment, comparison of test reports, relevance of past import assessments, interpretation of HSN Notes, determination of appropriate customs duty rate.

Classification of Goods:
The appellants imported incense sticks classified under Heading 3707 41 00, seeking 'nil' rate of additional duty of customs. The original authority declined provisional assessment, citing a previous classification under Heading 4421 90 90 attracting 16% CVD. The Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed this decision, leading to the current appeal.

Comparison of Test Reports:
The Chemical Examiner's reports on the incense sticks imported by the appellants during different periods were crucial. The reports described the composition and characteristics of the sticks, highlighting differences in length, odour, and presence of specific substances. The appellate authority rejected the claim that the subject goods were different from those classified under Heading 4421 90 90 based on these reports.

Interpretation of HSN Notes:
The argument centered on the interpretation of HSN Notes to determine the appropriate classification of the imported goods. The appellants relied on specific notes under Heading 44.21 to support their case for classification under Heading 3307 41 00, emphasizing the nature of the goods and their operational characteristics.

Relevance of Past Import Assessments:
The past import assessments of similar goods by the Customs authorities were crucial in determining the classification of the subject goods. The consistency in assessment under Heading 3307 41 00 for previous imports and the lack of challenge by the Revenue played a significant role in the decision-making process.

Determining Customs Duty Rate:
The Tribunal analyzed the nature of the imported goods, their operational characteristics, and the past conduct of both the appellants and the Revenue in assessing similar goods. This analysis led to the conclusion that the subject goods should be classified under Heading 3707 41 00, attracting a 'nil' rate of CVD. The appeal was allowed based on this determination.