1990 (8) TMI 282 - Commissioner - Customs

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff - Whether goods should be classified under C.E.T. 4823.19 or 4823.90 for the purpose of additional duty of Customs.

Analysis:
1. The appellants imported impregnated filter paper and sought clearance under heading 4811.29 with Notification 219/80. However, the Asstt. Collector rejected this classification and ordered to assess the goods under Heading 4823.90. The appellants contended that previous consignments were cleared under Heading 4811.29 and argued against the sudden change in assessment. They emphasized that the impugned goods should be classified under Heading 48.11 for the benefit of Notification 219/80, not under Heading 48.23. The test report confirmed the goods as impregnated paper, supporting the appellants' claim for a different classification.

2. During the hearing, the appellants' representatives highlighted the limited issue of whether the goods should be classified under C.E.T. 4823.19 or 4823.90 for the purpose of additional duty of Customs. They referred to the General Rules for the Interpretation of Tariff and argued that sub-heading 19 should apply based on the nature of the goods. The dispute focused solely on the classification for the additional duty, not the basic duty of Customs, within Heading 48.23.

3. The Collector (Appeals) considered the submissions and evidence presented. The Bill of Entry indicated classification under Heading 4823.90 for the additional duty, which the appellants contested, pushing for classification under 4823.19 instead. The dispute centered on the sub-heading within Heading 48.23, as the main heading classification was undisputed.

4. Heading 48.23 includes "Other paper, paper board, Cellulose wadding and webs of cellulose fibres, cut to size or shape; other articles of paper pulp, paper board, cellulose wadding or webs of cellulose fibres." The sub-headings under this heading categorize different types of articles. The appellants argued that their goods fell under sub-heading 19, as their paper was cut to size, aligning with the classification criteria.

5. The General Explanatory Notes to the Rules for Interpretation of the Excise Tariff supported the interpretation that sub-heading 4823.19 pertained to articles cut to size or shape, which was the case for the appellants' goods. Sub-heading 4823.90 covered the second part of Heading 48.23, distinct from the sub-categories covered by sub-heading 19.

6. The correct classification of the impugned goods was determined to be under sub-heading 4823.19, not 4823.90, for the purpose of additional duty of Customs. The order was set aside, directing the classification under C.E.T. 4823.19 and providing consequential relief to the appellants.