2017 (5) TMI 1180 - AT - Customs

Classification of goods - New Trim Cutting Synthetic Waste - classified under CTH 63109040 or under CTH 5603 - N/N. 12/2012 Cus. dated 17.3.2012 - Held that - Fabric with the width of 2.6 inches to 4 inches even if it is in running length cannot be considered as synthetic strip classifiable under CTH 5603. The CTH 6310 covers used or new rags, scrap twine, cordage, rope and cables and worn out articles of twine, cordage, rope or cables, of textile materials . The Circular No. 20/2011 Cus dated 15.4.2011 has clarified that the import of Trim Cutting waste or fibre trim of continuous length with width upto 10 fall under CTH 6310 required for the manufacture of Chindi rugs will be allowed for clearance without any import license. The above CBEC circular strengthens the view that imported goods are in the nature of waste used for manufacture of rugs and hence will be rightly classifiable under CTH 6310. Appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported goods under CTH 6310 or 5603; Benefit of CVD at nil rate under notification No. 12/2012 Cus.

In this case, the appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) New Delhi regarding the classification of imported goods declared as "New Trim Cutting Synthetic Waste" under CTH 63109040. The original authority classified the goods under 5603 as synthetic strip/felt in running length, not as waste. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the importer's classification under CTH 6310. The Revenue sought to restore the original authority's order. The Revenue argued that the goods, in running length with complete edges and proper packing, should be classified under 5603, not 6310. The respondent, an exporter of hand-made rugs, claimed the goods were for use in rug manufacture and fell under CTH 6310 according to a CBEC Circular. The Tribunal noted that the goods were synthetic strips in running length, not synthetic strip classifiable under 5603, and that CTH 6310 covers rags and worn-out textile materials. The respondent's written submissions clarified that the goods were trim cutting waste from non-woven fabric rolls, suitable for making rugs. Referring to the CBEC Circular, the Tribunal concluded that the goods were rightly classifiable under CTH 6310 as waste for rug manufacturing. Therefore, the impugned order was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.