9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Classification of imported Synthetic Plasticizer under Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, involved the classification of Synthetic Plasticizer (aromatic) imported in 1985 under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The main issue was whether the product should be assessed under Heading 39.01/06 as contended by the Revenue or under Heading 38.01/19 as claimed by the respondents. The respondents sought a refund of excess duty paid, which was initially rejected by the Assistant Collector but allowed by the Collector (Appeals), leading to the present appeal. The Tribunal considered the nature of the product, described as a Synthetic Plasticizer in the manufacturers' literature and tested by the Customs Laboratory in 1987. The technical opinion described the product as an Aromatic Polyether with a molecular weight of about 500, used as a rubber plasticizer. The appellant-Collector argued that the substance should be classified under Heading 39.01/06 as a polymer, emphasizing that the use of the substance as a plasticizer was irrelevant. The Collector contended that Chapter 38 is a residuary chapter for chemical products, while polyethers are specifically covered by Chapter 39. Referring to a previous case involving the classification of plasticizers, the Tribunal noted that the product in question did not conform to the definition of polymerization products under Chapter Note 2(c) to Chapter 39. Despite the Collector's argument that the product in the present case was different from the previous case as it was a polymer and not a resin, the Tribunal found no significant distinction. The Tribunal emphasized that the crucial aspect was whether the product met the definition of polymerization products for the purpose of Heading 39.01/06, which the Revenue failed to establish. Based on the discussion and precedent, the Tribunal concluded that the goods should be classified under Heading 38.01/19(6) rather than Heading 39.01/06 as contended by the Revenue. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order allowing the refund and dismissed the appeal brought by the Collector.
|
