2017 (7) TMI 583 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported goods - Electric conductors 7/8 - whether classifiable under CTH 85442010 or under CTH 85444190? - Held that - A specific entry in tariff excludes other goods embraced by different tariff entries and even may be under the same chapter - The goods being described in the bill of entry is meant for telecommunication purpose, those were unerringly co-axial cables and nothing else. Therefore the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is fundamentally erroneous for which that is set aside and the adjudication order is upheld - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Act, 1975

Classification of Goods:
The issue in this case revolves around the correct classification of goods imported under a specific bill of entry. The adjudicating authority classified the goods as co-axial cables under CTH 85442010, while the Commissioner (Appeals) reclassified them under CTH 85444190. The argument presented by the learned DR emphasized that co-axial cables, meant for telecommunication purposes, fall under CTH 85442010, and the appellate authority erred in setting aside the adjudication order. Reference was made to a previous judgment by the Chennai Bench of Tribunal in a similar case.

Analysis:
The judgment delves into the classification of goods under Chapter 85 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. It is established that co-axial cables are specifically covered under CTH 85442010 as per the relevant tariff entry. The Tribunal highlights that the description of the goods in the bill of entry, intended for telecommunication purposes, unequivocally aligns with co-axial cables. Therefore, the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to reclassify the goods under a different category is deemed fundamentally erroneous. The judgment upholds the adjudication order based on the clear classification criteria provided in the tariff entry.

Conclusion:
Ultimately, the appeal is allowed in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the importance of accurate classification of goods under the Customs Tariff Act. The judgment reinforces the principle that specific tariff entries exclude other goods encompassed by different entries within the same chapter. The case serves as a precedent for ensuring the correct classification of goods, particularly in scenarios where the intended purpose of the goods aligns with a specific category under the Customs Tariff Act.