2017 (5) TMI 1327 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported goods - Dumb Floating Cranes Barge Gudami imported from Muscut - The appellant seeks classification of these vessels under 8901.1040 as barges or 8901 90 00 as other vessels for transportation of goods or persons - It is the view taken by Revenue that 8901 10 covers various vessels which on the basis of description, can be inferred as those for transport of persons - whether the goods classified under CTH 8901 10 40 or classified under CTH 8905 90 90? - Benefit of N/N. 21/2002-Cus. dated 1.3.2002 - Held that - Even though the imported vessels are described as barges, these vessels do not have the engines necessary for self-propulsion and are required to be pulled by means of a tug. Consequently, it does not have the prime requirement of having ability for classifiable under Heading 8901 - Only with the capacity to navigate, the barges can be described as vessels for the transport of persons or goods. Consequently, the classification goes out of the purview of Heading 8901. Heading 8905 covers vessels of various types whose navigability is subsidiary to their main function. Such vessels need not have the capability of navigation on their own. The imported vessels have cranes on board and can move cargo from ship to shore and vice versa. The purpose of such vessel is to load/unload cargo from ship/shore on to the barge and to move such cargo between ship and shore. Such vessels, in our opinion, will be rightly classifiable under Heading 8905. Appeal rejected - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported barges under CTH 8901 or 8905.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute over the classification of two imported barges described as "Dumb Floating Cranes Barge Gudami" from Muscut. The appellant sought classification under CTH 8901 10 40, while the Revenue classified them under 8905 90 90. The primary contention was whether the vessels fell under the category of barges for transportation of goods under CTH 8901 or as floating cranes under 8905.

The appellant argued that the vessels should be classified under 8901 as barges, emphasizing that the presence of a crane did not negate their primary function of transporting goods. They relied on case laws supporting the classification of similar vessels under 8901. However, the Revenue contended that since the imported vessels lacked self-propulsion and navigability, they should be classified under 8905 as floating cranes. They also cited a Tribunal decision in a similar case to support their argument.

The Tribunal analyzed the characteristics of the imported vessels and concluded that without the ability for self-propulsion, the vessels did not meet the criteria for classification under 8901 as vessels for transportation of goods. Instead, the vessels, equipped with cranes for loading/unloading cargo, were deemed more appropriately classified under Heading 8905 as vessels with subsidiary navigability. The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's classification under 8905 and dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants.

In summary, the judgment resolved the classification issue by determining that the imported barges, lacking self-propulsion, were correctly classified under Heading 8905 as floating cranes rather than under 8901 as vessels for transportation of goods. The decision was based on the vessels' characteristics and their primary function of transporting cargo with the assistance of cranes, leading to the rejection of the appellant's appeals.