9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Classification of imported goods under the Indian Tariff Act, 1934 and imposition of countervailing duty.
In this case, the appellants imported Antimony Oxide and claimed its classification under Item 28 of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934. However, the lower authorities classified the goods under Item 30 and imposed countervailing duty under Item 14(I)(5) CET. The appellants contended that the goods were of technical grade for use in glass manufacture, not as a coloring agent. They argued that the classification should be under Item 28 without countervailing duty. The respondent supported the lower authority's classification, stating the goods could be used as coloring material. The Tribunal referred to technical books and previous decisions, notably Appeal No. 521/80-C, and found in favor of the appellants. The Tribunal held that the mere possibility of the goods being used as coloring material did not justify classification based on revenue considerations. The manufacturers' statement that the goods were not of pigment grade but used in glass and plastics manufacturing supported this decision. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the lower authority's order and allowed the appeal, granting relief to the appellants. This judgment primarily dealt with the classification of imported goods under the Indian Tariff Act, 1934 and the imposition of countervailing duty. The key issue was whether Antimony Oxide imported by the appellants should be classified under Item 28 as claimed by them or under Item 30 as determined by the lower authorities. The appellants argued that the goods were of technical grade for use in glass manufacture, not as a coloring agent, and should be exempt from countervailing duty. The respondent contended that the goods could be used as coloring material, justifying the classification under Item 30 and the imposition of countervailing duty. During the proceedings, the appellants presented technical evidence and legal arguments to support their classification claim under Item 28. They referenced Tribunal decisions and emphasized that the goods were intended for a specific technical use in glass manufacturing. The respondent, on the other hand, supported the lower authority's decision based on the potential alternative use of the goods as coloring material. The respondent argued that classifying the goods under a tariff entry with higher duty was justified to protect revenue interests. After considering the arguments, technical evidence, and previous decisions, the Tribunal found merit in the appellants' contentions. The Tribunal relied on the manufacturers' statement regarding the intended use of the goods and the absence of evidence supporting the goods' classification as coloring material. The Tribunal emphasized that the mere possibility of an alternative use as coloring material did not warrant classification based on revenue considerations. By referencing a previous decision (Appeal No. 521/80-C), the Tribunal concluded that the appellants were entitled to the classification under Item 28 without countervailing duty. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the lower authority's classification and granted relief to the appellants, allowing their appeal.
|
