1990 (6) TMI 166 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported goods.
2. Valuation of imported goods.
3. Applicability of concessional rate of duty.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Imported Goods:
The appellants imported two consignments of "High Impact Polystyrene" and declared them under Heading No. 3903.19 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, claiming a lower duty rate. The Customs authorities, however, classified the goods under Heading No. 3903.90, attracting higher duty rates. The Customs Laboratory Test Reports indicated that the goods were a copolymer of styrene with styrene monomer content around 87.5%, which is less than the 95% required for classification as a homopolymer. Consequently, the goods were classified under Heading No. 3903.90 as "Other polymers of styrene." The Tribunal upheld this classification, noting that the product literature described the goods as a graft copolymer of styrene monomer and synthetic rubber, aligning with the Customs authorities' classification.

2. Valuation of Imported Goods:
The appellants declared the value of the goods at US $1485 per M.T. CIF, while the Customs authorities determined the assessable value at US $1850 per M.T. CIF based on comparable imports through Bombay port. The Tribunal found merit in the appellants' contention that the difference in suppliers (Korean vs. Hongkong) and other factors such as shipment timing and terms of payment could account for price differences. The Tribunal noted that the Customs authorities did not provide evidence of similar imports at higher prices at Calcutta or any remittance towards the difference in the "real" price. The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue had not established the charge of under-valuation/mis-declaration and directed the Additional Collector to determine the assessable value based on the invoiced price of US $1485 per M.T. CIF.

3. Applicability of Concessional Rate of Duty:
The appellants claimed the benefit of Customs Notification No. 342/76, which provides a concessional rate of duty for polystyrene of Korean origin. The Tribunal noted that this claim had not been made before the lower authority but acknowledged that if the goods met the requirements of the said Notification, the appellants would be entitled to the concessional rate. The Tribunal directed the lower authority to examine this aspect, noting that both polystyrene polymers and copolymers are covered by the Notification.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appellants' claim regarding the valuation of the goods, directing the Additional Collector to determine the assessable value based on the invoiced price. However, it dismissed the appellants' claim regarding the classification of the goods, upholding the Customs authorities' classification under Heading No. 3903.90. The Tribunal also directed the Additional Collector to re-determine the rate of duty in light of the concessional rate claim under Customs Notification No. 342/76. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.