1991 (10) TMI 135 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Act, applicability of Notification No. 125/86-Cus. for refund claims, interpretation of Chapter Headings 48, 39, and 76, reliance on Rule 3 of Interpretative Rules of Customs Tariff Act.

In this case, the appellants imported 'Tetra Pack Asceptic Packaging Materials' made of polyethylene coated craft paper printed in Reels and declared them under Chapter Heading 4811.39. They sought a refund claiming classification under Chapter Heading 3921.90 and the benefit of Notification No. 125/86-Cus. The Collector (Appeals) rejected the refund claims, stating that the benefit of the notification applies only to goods under Chapter Heading 39.20 and not to all types of asceptic packaging material. The Collector classified the goods under Chapter Heading 48.07, while the appellants argued that the goods should be classified under Chapter Heading 4811.29 due to their composition.

The appellants contended that the goods should not be classified under Chapter Heading 48 as they were laminated with plastic and aluminum foil, which, according to them, excluded the product from Chapter 48. They relied on Rule 3(b) of the Interpretation of Customs Tariff to support their classification argument. On the other hand, the revenue authority argued that the goods were polyethylene coated kraft paper, not made of metal foil, and should fall under Chapter Heading 76.07. They emphasized that the classification should be based on the predominance of ingredients in the product as per Rule 3(a) of the Interpretative Rules.

After considering the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal analyzed the composition of the goods, which included basic paper, aluminum foil, and polyethylene. The technical literature presented by the appellants highlighted the use of aluminum foil for various purposes like gas barrier, light barrier, and sealing. The Tribunal noted that the goods were predominantly paper-based and did not fall under the exclusions mentioned in Chapter 48. Therefore, the Tribunal ruled out Chapter 48 and Chapter 76 as applicable headings for classification.

The Tribunal applied Rule 3 of the Interpretative Rules of Customs Tariff Act to determine the most appropriate heading for the goods. Rule 3(a) was deemed applicable as the materials used in the goods provided a more precise description. Considering the predominance of paper in the composition, the Tribunal upheld the classification under Chapter Heading 4811.29 as 'other.' As the goods did not qualify under Chapter 39, the Notification No. 125/86-Cus. was deemed inapplicable. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Collector's classification decision under Chapter Heading 4811.29.