2009 (5) TMI 189 - AT - Customs

Vide the impugned order, Polypropylene mesh imported in running length (roll form) has been classified under CTH 58039090 which covers Gauze other than narrow fabrics of heading 58.06 as the goods are akin to gauze, and held to attract merit rate of duty of 20% 16% ad valorem, rejecting the claim of the importers for classification under CTH 90219090 (CTH 9021 covers orthopaedic appliances hearing aids and other appliances which are worn or carried, or implanted in the body to compensate for a defect or disability ) but extending the benefit of concessional rate of duty under item No. 119 vide list 8 (Sl. No. 94C) of the Table annexed to the Notification No. 21/02-Cus. dt. 1-3-02 as amended. The importer is in appeal against the classification of the goods, while the Revenue has filed an appeal against extension of benefit of the notification. - We, hold that the goods are not covered by description under CTH 9021. Item being in running length can also not be considered as an artile of plastic so it should not be classified under the category of plastic articles under CTH 3926 90 99 Tarriff item CTH 5803 90 90 is more appropriate assessee s appeal dismissed revenue s appeal is allowed

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported "Polypropylene mesh" under Customs Tariff Headings (CTH) 5803 90 90, 90219090, or 3926 90 99; Benefit of concessional rate under Notification No. 21/02-Cus. dt. 1-3-02.

In the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI, the issue at hand was the classification of "Polypropylene mesh" imported by M/s. TTK Healthcare Ltd. The Tribunal considered whether the goods should be classified under CTH 5803 90 90, CTH 90219090, or CTH 3926 90 99. The imported goods were in running length and underwent processes like cutting, cleaning, packing, and sterilizing before being sold as a "versatile prosthesis for surgical reconstruction of thoracic and abdominal wall defects." The importers argued for classification under CTH 90219090, which covers orthopedic appliances, while also suggesting an alternate classification under CTH 3926 90 99 for plastic articles. However, the Tribunal found that the goods did not meet the criteria for either classification. It was determined that the classification under CTH 5803 90 90, as gauze-like items, was more appropriate given the nature of the goods before processing. The Tribunal rejected the importers' appeal based on these findings.

Regarding the benefit of the concessional rate under Notification No. 21/02-Cus. dt. 1-3-02, the Tribunal addressed the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal noted that the benefit of the notification depended not only on the description of the goods but also on their classification under specific Customs Tariff Headings. The Tribunal distinguished the case law cited by the importers, emphasizing that the imported item, in its presented form, did not qualify as an appliance to be implanted in the body. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal while dismissing the importers' appeal. The judgment highlighted the importance of accurate classification under the Customs Tariff Headings for determining eligibility for benefits under relevant notifications.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision upheld the classification of the imported "Polypropylene mesh" under CTH 5803 90 90 and denied the applicability of concessional rates under the notification. The judgment serves as a precedent emphasizing the significance of proper classification under the Customs Tariff Headings to determine applicable duties and benefits under relevant notifications.