2022 (9) TMI 1130 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported goods - MC PCB - MC PCB NBL 7W9 S1P to 835 V1.0 25 25 1 mm 7 13 Panel Tc 1W/m Copper thickness 0.5 Oz (FOR MFG OF LED LAMP) - to be classified under tariff item 8534 00 00 or tariff item 9405 99 00 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975? - printed circuit boards or not - HELD THAT - The specificity of description in the claimed classification is not anywhere matched by the description within which the assessing authorities have sought to place the impugned goods. Moreover, it is clear from the description that parts , if at all finding fitment within heading 9405 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975, should not be specified or included elsewhere. In the light of the specific description, notwithstanding the addition of a metallic layer which does not find elaboration in the rival heading too, rule 3 (a) of The General Rules for the Interpretation of Import Tariff offers the solution without having to proceed further. The assessing authorities has not been discharged in accordance with the law as held. The classification adopted by the assessing authorities fails in the face of the specific entry which the respondent herein has not been able to demonstrate as having been excluded from the claimed description. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Applicability of note 2(a) in section XVI - Interpretation of classification rules - Reliance on expert opinion - Burden of proof on tax authorities - Relevance of previous classification by importer - Use of goods in manufacture of lamps - Interpretation of GST rate notification - Application of General Rules for Interpretation of Import Tariff.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the classification of imported goods under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The appellant, M/s Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Ltd, contested the reclassification of their goods by the assessing authority against tariff item 9405 99 00, instead of the claimed tariff item 8534 00 00. The appellant argued that the goods, described as 'MC PCB-MC PCB NBL 7W9 S1P to 835 V1.0 25*25*1 mm 7*13 Panel Tc=1W/m Copper thickness 0.5 Oz (FOR MFG OF LED LAMP)', should be classified as 'printed circuit boards' under the latter tariff item. The contention was based on the incorporation of an additional metal layer for thermal management, distinguishing the goods from the classification sought by the authorities.

2. The appellant's counsel highlighted the importance of note 2(a) in section XVI of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which requires 'parts' that are goods themselves to be classified in their respective headings. The counsel also referenced legal precedents, including the decision in Dunlop India Ltd & Madras Rubber Factory v. Union of India, to challenge the reliance on notification no. 1/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) for classification determination. Additionally, the appellant argued that the burden of proof for substitution of classification, as established in prior cases like Hindustan Ferodo Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, had not been met by the tax authorities.

3. On the other hand, the authorized representative for the respondent emphasized the past classification history of the goods under tariff item 9405 40 90 and the intended use of the goods in the manufacture of lamps. The representative relied on rule 3(c) of the General Rules for Interpretation of the Import Tariff to support the classification under heading 9405. Reference was made to specific entries in GST rate notifications and Schedule II for legislative intent clarification.

4. The judgment delves into legal principles established by the Supreme Court regarding the classification of goods based on their nature, function, and statutory fiscal entries. The tribunal rejected the lower authorities' reliance on technical material and emphasized the responsibility of the assessing authority in determining classification under the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment also highlighted the application of rule 3(c) for comparing rival claims at the heading level and the failure of tax authorities to discharge the burden of proof in classifying the goods differently from the appellant's claim.

5. Ultimately, the tribunal found that the assessing authorities had not met the burden of proof required for reclassification. The specific description of the goods and the lack of exclusion from the claimed classification led to the setting aside of the impugned order and the allowance of the appeal. The judgment underscored the importance of following established legal principles in classification disputes and the necessity for tax authorities to provide proper evidence to support their classification decisions.