2008 (4) TMI 116 - AT - Customs

Imported good Alpha Cellulose - Chemical Examiner certified the goods to be composed of cellulose and to be other than pulp - sample satisfied the definition for cellulose powder appellant claiming it as chemical wood pulp is not acceptable - Examiner s report based on the analytical certificate supplied by the party cannot be assailed by them - uphold the classification u/h 39.12 and SH 3912.90 of CTA Schedule - assessee is liable to pay differential duty accordingly

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported goods under specific tariff headings, adherence to principles of natural justice, consideration of evidence and literature in classification process.

Classification of Goods:
The case involved the classification of imported goods described as "Alpha Cellulose Grade Arbocell BWW 40" under the Customs Tariff Act Schedule. The appellants imported the goods from Germany and cleared them under a Bill of Entry dated 30.1.97. The dispute arose when the Customs authorities, based on a test report by the Chemical Examiner, proposed to reclassify the goods under a different tariff heading (SH 3912.90) and demanded a higher duty amount. The appellants contended that the goods should be classified under SH 4704.01, arguing that the test report was inconclusive and requested a re-test in the Central Revenue Chemical Laboratory (CRCL). However, the Chemical Examiner, relying on the analytical certificate supplied by the party, confirmed that the goods satisfied the definition of cellulose powder. The Tribunal analyzed the evidence and literature presented by both parties and upheld the classification of the goods under Heading 39.12 and SH 3912.90, holding the appellants liable for the payment of the demanded differential duty.

Principles of Natural Justice:
One of the grounds raised by the appellants was the alleged non-observance of natural justice by the adjudicating authority for not allowing a re-test by the CRCL. However, the Tribunal found that the Chemical Examiner's clarification was based on the analytical certificate provided by the party themselves, indicating highly pure cellulose composition of the goods. As such, the Tribunal concluded that there was no denial of natural justice in the classification process, as the decision was made based on the evidence and clarification provided by the Chemical Examiner.

Consideration of Evidence and Literature:
The appellants argued that the goods should not be classified under Chapter 39 as cellulose derivatives, contending that the goods were wood pulp-derived cellulose and not a derivative as defined under Heading 39.12. They relied on documents indicating the nature and composition of the goods, emphasizing that the product was cellulose in its primary form. The Tribunal examined the submissions, including data sheets and letters from the manufacturer, and determined that the goods met the classification criteria under SH 3912.90, as supported by the Chemical Examiner's report and the literature provided by the appellants. The Tribunal emphasized that the goods, being other than cellulose acetates and ethers, were appropriately classified under the specified tariff heading.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the classification of the imported goods under Heading 39.12 and SH 3912.90, dismissing the appeal and holding the assessee liable for the payment of the demanded differential duty. The decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence, literature, and the principles of natural justice, ensuring a fair and reasoned judgment in the matter.