9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Classification of imported goods for Customs Duty assessment under Indian Customs Tariff - Refund claim under Item 46(2) and Item 46(4)(b) - Predominant character of raw wool in blended fibres - Interpretation of un-manufactured textile material - Nature of blended material containing synthetic polyester.
In the case before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, the appellants had imported special papermaker's wool blended with special papermaker's synthetic polyester and were assessed Customs Duty under the residuary Item No. 87 at 60% plus 10% adv. They sought a refund, arguing for reassessment at 40% plus 5% adv. under Item No. 46(2) as "wool, raw, and wooltops". Additionally, they made an alternative claim under Item 46(4)(b) as "all other un-manufactured textile materials not otherwise specified". The Asstt. Collector rejected the claims, stating that the synthetic polyester content was significant and that the alternative claim was time-barred. The Appellate Collector also denied the claims, determining that the blended goods could not be classified as un-manufactured textile material under either item due to the presence of synthetic polyester. During the appeal hearing, the appellants contended that the synthetic polyester content was minor, and the blended fibres retained the predominant character of raw wool under Item 46(2. They argued that the blending did not result in a manufactured textile material, thus falling under Item 46(4)(b). They referenced a previous Tribunal's order to support their position that citing the alternative item was not a fresh claim but an additional ground for the same refund claim. The department's representative countered, stating that the goods were a blended material and did not qualify as raw wool or unmanufactured textile material under the Customs Tariff Act. Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal agreed with the appellants that their claim could be considered under the alternative Item 46(4)(b). While acknowledging that the blended material with polyester fibre could not be categorized as raw wool under Item 46(2, the Tribunal found merit in classifying the goods under Item 46(4)(b). They reasoned that the blend of raw wool and polyester did not transform into a manufactured textile material and remained unmanufactured textile material as per common understanding. As the imported goods were essentially blended fibres, they were deemed classifiable under Item 46(4)(b), allowing the appellants' claim under this item and granting them consequential relief.
|
