1988 (4) TMI 50 - SC - Customs

Whether the product known as Santicizer 429 imported to be on test found to be organic compound (easier - type) inform of colourless viscore liquid and as per 7.0.046, should be considered as polymeric plasti ciner? Held that - The Tribunal was right in the view it took that plasticizers were not resins; these are added to resins to impart better flexibility or plastic properties to the latter. Nor did they seem to be plastic materials by themselves. The Tribunal found that Santicizer 429 which is admittedly a plasticizer would, therefore, not have fallen for classification under Heading No. 39.01/06 of the Customs Tariff Schedule as it stood prior to its amendment in 1978. Appeal dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Dispute over custom duty imposed on imported product 'Santicizer 429', Classification of the product under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, Interpretation of the term 'plasticizer', Applicability of Heading 39.01/06 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, Tribunal's reliance on previous decisions for classification.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) regarding the imposition of custom duty on the imported product 'Santicizer 429'. The Assistant Collector of Customs initially classified the product as a polymeric plasticizer. However, the Appellate Collector determined that the product fell under Chapter 38 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as a linear polyester, specifically under CCCN 39.01(E). The Tribunal, relying on previous decisions, classified the product under Heading 38.01/19(6) of the Customs Tariff Act. The Tribunal considered technical information about the product, describing it as a medium-high molecular polyester plasticizer with various properties beneficial for specific applications in the industry.

In the case of Bhor Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, the Tribunal observed that 'Santicizer 429' did not qualify as a resin or plastic material but rather acted as a plasticizer to enhance flexibility or plastic properties of other materials. The Tribunal concluded that the product should be classified under Heading 38.01/19(6) as a "plasticizer, not elsewhere specified," instead of under Heading 39.01/06. This classification was further supported in the subsequent decision of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Bhor Industries Ltd. and Another, where the Tribunal reiterated that plasticizers are not resins but are added to enhance flexibility in materials.

The Tribunal's decisions were based on the understanding that goods like 'Santicizer 429' are known and treated in trade literature as plasticizers, which influenced their classification under the Customs Tariff Act. The Tribunal's interpretation of the product's nature and purpose aligned with industry standards and technical descriptions, leading to the dismissal of the appeals challenging the classification. The judgment emphasized the importance of trade practices and industry knowledge in determining the appropriate classification of goods under customs regulations.