Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 1987 (1) TMI AT This
Issues: Classification of imported valves under Heading 84.61(1) as Pipe Line Valves or Heading 84.61(2) as Isolating Valves.
The judgment revolves around the classification of imported valves under Heading 84.61(1) as Pipe Line Valves or Heading 84.61(2) as Isolating Valves. The appellants imported valves and claimed assessment under Heading 84.61(2) as "Isolating Valve," but the Assistant Collector assessed them under Heading 84.61(1) as Pipe Line Valves. The main contention was whether the valves should be classified as isolating valves based on their function. The consultant for the appellants argued that the valves should be classified as isolating valves under Heading 84.61(2) because they play a crucial role in isolating specific gases in the cyclic gas generation process. He emphasized that the mode of operation of the valves, regardless of type, is essential for isolation. The consultant relied on information from designers and manufacturers to support the classification as isolating valves. On the other hand, the respondent pointed out that the description of the items in the invoice referred to them as "Complete Gate Valves" and "Complete Hot Gas Valve." The respondent cited a previous Tribunal decision and a description from Lyons' Encyclopaedia of Valves, stating that isolating valves are hand-operated valves used to shut off fluid pressure. The respondent argued that the imported valves did not function as isolating valves, supporting the assessment under Heading 84.61(1) as Pipe Line Valves. The Tribunal analyzed the functions of the valves in question and compared them to the definition of isolating valves. It was noted that the valves did not perform the specific function of isolating gases but were used in the gas generation process. The Tribunal concluded that the valves did not meet the criteria to be classified as isolating valves under Heading 84.61(2) and upheld the assessment under Heading 84.61(1) as Pipe Line Valves. The appeal was rejected based on this classification analysis.
|