9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 463 - AT - CustomsClassification of Glass chatons The appellant imported glass chatons and glass and claimed assessment of the same under CTH No. 7018 10 20 as Beads and claimed exemption from CVD - The Customs authorities were of the view that as per HSN explanatory notes, glass chatons and glass beads are not one and the same - they classified the glass chatons imported by the appellant under CTH 7018 90 90 and levied 10% CVD on the goods - Held that - The classification adopted by the assessing officer does not seem to have any basis - The lower appellate authority had differed with the assessing officer with regard to classification. Whether piercing of a chaton was essential for it to be called a bead was considered in STARLITE CORPORATION, BOMBAY Versus UNION OF INDIA 1985 (12) TMI 61 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY - the piercing of a chaton was not essential for it to be called a bead - The petitioners articles were, therefore, glass beads entitled to exemption under the notification - The appellant s contention was accepted and the appeal allowed by setting aside the impugned order with consequential relief. By applying the trade parlance test also the goods were classifiable as glass beads - it was laid that for the purposes of classification the trade meaning should be given due importance unless the Tariff itself requires the terms were to be interpreted in a strict technical sense in which case technical dictionaries should be used - the question of applying strict technical sense also does not arise classification of the impugned goods under CTH 7018 10 20 as glass beads upheld - Decided in favor of assesse.
Issues:
Classification of Glass chatons imported by the appellant under CTH No. 7018 10 20 as "Beads" and exemption from CVD. Analysis: The issue pertains to the classification of Glass chatons imported by the appellant, M/s. Art Beads Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. The appellant claimed assessment of the glass chatons under CTH No. 7018 10 20 as "Beads" and sought exemption from CVD. Customs authorities disagreed, stating that glass chatons and glass beads are distinct products. They argued that for a product to be classified as 'beads,' it should be 'pierced,' and in trade terms, glass chatons and glass beads are different. Consequently, the authorities classified the glass chatons under CTH 7018 90 90 and imposed a 10% CVD. The lower appellate authority upheld this classification, stating that chatons are stones set in rings and have different uses from beads. The appellant contested this decision based on previous legal judgments and chemical examination reports. The appellant relied on decisions by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and the Tribunal, where it was held that piercing of a chaton is not essential for it to be called a bead, and glass chatons are eligible for duty exemption as glass beads. The appellant presented a Chemical Examiner's report confirming the nature of the goods as "glass beads." Affidavits from dealers in the goods also indicated that in trade parlance, glass chatons are considered a type of glass beads. The appellant argued that these legal precedents and evidence supported the classification of glass chatons as beads eligible for CVD exemption. The Revenue, represented by the Additional Commissioner, opposed the appellant's plea, citing HSN Explanatory Notes and materials from the internet to differentiate glass chatons from glass beads. They argued that chatons are not beads as they are not pierced and are similar to Rhinestones, artificial gems without holes. The Revenue urged the rejection of the appeal based on these distinctions. After considering the submissions from both parties, the Tribunal found that the appeal could be resolved without pre-deposit of dues. The Tribunal analyzed the tariff entry for Glass beads under CTH 7018 10 20, emphasizing that the classification adopted by the assessing officer lacked a valid basis. Referring to previous legal judgments, the Tribunal concurred that piercing of a chaton is not necessary for it to be classified as a bead. The Tribunal criticized the assessing and appellate authorities for not following established legal precedents and guidelines, classifying the impugned goods as glass beads under CTH 7018 10 20, and allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The stay application was also disposed of accordingly.
|
