9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Classification of imported goods under Heading 84.56 or alternatively under Heading 84.59(2) CTA, classification of mortars and pestles, misclassification by the Appellate Collector, reclassification of bowls under Chapter 68.
Analysis: The appeal in question was initially filed as a revision application before the Government of India and was later transferred to the Tribunal for adjudication. The dispute revolved around the classification of imported goods, specifically mortar grinders and porcelain mortar and pestles. The customs initially assessed the goods under Heading 84.59(1)CTA, while the mortars and pestles were assessed separately under Heading 68.01/06(l) as articles made of porcelain. The appellants contended for the reclassification of the goods under Heading 84.56 or alternatively under Heading 84.59(2) CTA. They argued that the mortars and pestles should not be classified separately but as parts of the grinders since they were essential components of the same. However, the Appellate Collector rejected this claim, stating that the imported machine was a general-purpose grinding machine not specific for grinding mineral substances only. During the hearing, the appellants' representative explained that the imported machines were used for manufacturing Homoeopathic medicines through a process called Trituration, which involved grinding and mixing various minerals. They argued that the machines were designed for the production of a commodity, i.e., Homoeopathic medicine, and should be classified accordingly. They also pointed out that the bowls were assessed separately as articles made of porcelain, contradicting the Appellate Collector's findings. On the other hand, the Respondent argued that the imported machines did not fall under Heading 84.56 as they were not designed for specific purposes like sorting, screening, or crushing mineral substances. They also contended that Heading 84.59(2) only covered machines explicitly designed for the production of a commodity, which, in this case, was not applicable as the grinders had multiple uses beyond manufacturing Homoeopathic medicines. After considering the arguments from both sides and examining the relevant Headings and literature provided by the parties, the Tribunal agreed with the Respondent's position. They found that the imported grinders were not specifically designed for the production of a commodity, despite being used for manufacturing Homoeopathic medicines by the appellants. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the classification of the grinders under Heading 84.59(1). Regarding the classification of the bowls, the Tribunal noted a factual error by the Appellate Collector and remanded this aspect of the matter to the Collector of Customs (Appeals) for a fresh decision. The Tribunal partially rejected the appeal and partially allowed it by remand, upholding the classification of the grinders under Heading 84.59(1) and setting aside the classification of the bowls for further review.
|
