2014 (2) TMI 16 - AT - Customs

Classification of goods - Entitlement of abatement - car MP3 Player versus MP3 player - Held that - The Heading 8519 deals with all goods other than MP3 player. The appellant claims that it will not come under that expression on the conception that the Car MP3 player is other than MP3 player. - It appears that appellant s claim is under the Heading 8519 & 8990 which deals with other goods. Whereas MP3 player is specifically dealt by the Headings 8519 & 8590. Once there is clear expression of the heading with the class of the goods there is nothing confusion to hold that the appellant s goods are different. Therefore, the goods of the appellant shall only enjoy abatement of 30% for which the appeal is dismissed - Decided against the assessee.

Issues involved:
Classification of imported goods under Heading 8519 for abatement of 35% versus Heading 85 for abatement of 30%.

Analysis:

1. Classification of Goods - Heading 8519 vs. Heading 85:
The appellant argued that the imported goods, Car MP3 Players, should be classified under Heading 8519 for a 35% abatement. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the goods fall under Heading 85 and are eligible for a 30% abatement. The bill of entry indicated the goods as MP3 players prefixed with "CAR." The appellate authority examined the difference between the entries under Heading 8519 and Chapter 85, specifically MP3 players. The appellant claimed that Car MP3 players are distinct from regular MP3 players. However, after scrutinizing the tariff entry descriptions, it was established that MP3 players are covered under Headings 8519 & 8590, while the appellant's goods were under Headings 8519 & 8990. The tribunal concluded that the appellant's goods were not different and should only receive a 30% abatement. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the stay application was disposed of by waiving the pre-deposit requirement.

2. Valuation Aspect and Appellate Authority's Decision:
Initially, the adjudication order focused on the valuation aspect, but the appellate authority extensively addressed the classification issue in their order. The tribunal highlighted that the Car MP3 player should not be considered distinct from an MP3 player. By examining the specific headings and classes of goods, it was determined that the appellant's goods did not qualify for the higher abatement rate of 35%. The tribunal's decision was based on a clear understanding of the classification criteria and the descriptions provided in the tariff entries, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

3. Legal Representation and Arguments:
The legal representatives for both parties presented their arguments regarding the classification of the imported goods and the corresponding abatement rates. The appellant's counsel emphasized the distinction between Car MP3 players and regular MP3 players to support the claim for a 35% abatement under Heading 8519. Conversely, the Revenue's representative relied on the bill of entry and the specific tariff headings to assert that the goods fell under Heading 85 for a 30% abatement. The tribunal carefully considered these arguments and ultimately based its decision on the classification criteria outlined in the relevant tariff entries, disregarding the appellant's contention of a significant difference between the goods in question.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi addressed the classification dispute regarding imported goods, specifically Car MP3 players, and ruled in favor of classifying them under Heading 85 for a 30% abatement, rejecting the appellant's claim for a higher abatement rate under Heading 8519. The decision was grounded in a detailed analysis of the tariff entries and the classification criteria, emphasizing the lack of substantial differences between the goods to warrant a distinct classification.

← Previous Next →