9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Correct classification of imported products under Chapter 40 or Chapter 39 of C.T.A. 2. Re-assessment of goods under specific headings. 3. Dispute over classification as synthetic rubber under Chapter 40 or Chapter 39. 4. Reliability of evidence presented by both parties. 5. Interpretation of relevant tariff headings and notes. Analysis: The case involved a dispute over the correct classification of imported products, namely CHEMIGUM N-328-B, CHEMIGUM N-628-B, and KRYNAC 110, under Chapter 40 or Chapter 39 of the Customs Tariff Act (C.T.A.). The appellant, M/s. Inarco Ltd., sought to re-assess the goods under Heading 4002.59 instead of the original assessment under Heading 3911.90 of C.T.A. 1975. The main contention was whether the products should be classified as synthetic rubber under Chapter 40, as argued by the appellant, or under Chapter 39, as contended by the Revenue. The appellant claimed that the imported products were raw synthetic rubber satisfying the guidelines of Chapter 40, specifically Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber (NBR), and should be assessed accordingly. They provided evidence including test reports, certificates from the Indian Rubber Manufacturers Research Association, and supplier literature to support their classification under Chapter 40. The Collector of Customs had partially admitted the appellant's contention regarding KRYNAC 110 but rejected the appeal concerning CHEMIGUM N-328-B and CHEMIGUM N-628-B, stating that they could not be classified as synthetic rubber under Chapter 40. The appellant's representative argued that the products met the criteria of Chapter 40 and should not be classified under Chapter 39, citing relevant provisions and definitions. The Department disputed the evidence presented by the appellant, questioning the reliability of test results and certificates provided. They argued that the products should be assessed under Chapter 39 based on the Harmonised Commodity and Coding System, highlighting potential discrepancies in the evidence submitted by the appellant. After considering the submissions and evidence from both parties, the Tribunal concluded that the imported products, identified as Synthetic (Nitrile) Rubber, should be classified under Heading 4002.59 of Chapter 40. The Tribunal found that the evidence presented by the appellant, including certificates and supplier literature, supported the classification of the products as synthetic rubber, in line with the guidelines of Chapter 40. The appeal was allowed, granting the appellants consequential relief. In a separate judgment, the President of the Tribunal concurred with the classification of the goods as Synthetic Rubber under Heading No. 4002.59, based on the evidence on record. The appeal was allowed, providing relief to the appellants in line with the classification under Chapter 40 of the C.T.A. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the appellant's classification of the imported products as synthetic rubber under Chapter 40, emphasizing the importance of evidence and adherence to relevant tariff headings and definitions in determining the correct classification for customs assessment.
|
