2016 (12) TMI 374 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported boats - classified under heading 89011030 as excursion boats or under heading 89039200 as sports boat? - Held that - the declaration of conformity filed by the manufacturer of the boats before the authorities in United States indicates that the boats which are imported by the appellant, are recreational craft. This particular declaration is annexed at page 24 of the appeal memoranda. The said declaration of conformity also states that the craft is powerboat. In addition to that, we find that the certificate of registration as issued by the Port officer, Government of Goa, specifically registered these boats as motor boats mars, mercury etc. and relies upon the declaration filed by the manufacturer i.e. Regal Marine Industries, Florida, though the description of the boat has been stated as excursion boats. We find that the adjudicating authority in order-in-original has reproduced the photographs of the boats which are imported. On casual perusal of the said reproduction of the photographs, we find that the boats which are imported by the appellant would merit classification only under heading 8903 as motor boats, other than outboard motor boats which is a specific entry indicated in the Customs Tariff Act. The HSN Explanatory Notes to chapter 8901 specifically excludes the vessels of heading 8903. It would mean that heading 8901 would exclude vessels which are specifically listed in the said heading of 8903. In 8903, motor boat is mentioned as specific vessel under specific heading. The impugned order is correct and legal and does not suffer from any infirmity - boat classified under heading 8903 - appeal rejected - decided in favor of Revenue-respondent.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported boats under heading 89011030 or 89039200.

Analysis:
The appeal revolved around the classification of imported boats under the Customs Tariff Act. The appellant claimed the boats should be classified under heading 89011030 as excursion boats, while the adjudicating authority classified them under heading 89039200 as sports boats. The appellant argued that the boats were meant for ferrying persons in Goa, not for pleasure or sports. They provided documentation from the Captain of Ports, Government of Goa, to support their claim. The appellant contended that the boats fell under heading 8901, covering vessels for the transport of persons or goods, not under heading 8903 for pleasure or sports vessels. They referenced the Maritime & Coastguard Agency Marine Guidance Note to define pleasure vessels and cited case law to support their argument.

On the other hand, the departmental representative argued that the boats were specially manufactured for pleasure and sports, as indicated in the manufacturer's catalogue. They supported their stance with the findings of the adjudicating authority and specific tariff entries under heading 89039200. The representative relied on the Supreme Court's decision in GS Auto International Ltd. to assert that the boats should be classified under heading 8903. They also cited a case involving a floating casino to strengthen their position.

The Tribunal carefully considered both sides' submissions and examined the competing entries under chapter headings 8901 and 8903 of the Customs Tariff Act. They noted the appellant's claim that the boats were excursion and ferry boats, but found evidence indicating that the boats were recreational craft and powerboats. The Tribunal observed the manufacturer's declaration and the registration certificates classifying the boats as motor boats. They concluded that the boats should be classified under heading 8903 as motor boats, excluding them from heading 8901. The Tribunal referred to the HSN Explanatory Notes and specific vessel listings to support their decision.

Regarding the appellant's reliance on previous decisions and a Board circular, the Tribunal clarified that those references were specific to different circumstances and vessels. They emphasized that the Board's circular did not apply to motor boats. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's classification under heading 89039200, deeming the impugned order correct and legally sound. The appeal was rejected, and the judgment was pronounced on 4.11.2016.