1992 (3) TMI 192 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Correct classification of imported goods under the Customs Tariff.
2. Eligibility for concessional assessment under Notification No. 136/86.
3. Reassessment under a different heading than originally claimed.
4. Typographical error in the refund claim.

Analysis:
The appellants filed a Bill of Entry claiming assessment of goods under Heading No. 3403.99 with the benefit of Notification No. 136/86. However, the goods were assessed differently, leading to a refund claim under Heading 3402.19, which was rejected by the Assistant Collector. The appellants argued that the goods were a lubricating preparation and should be classified under Heading 3403.99. The appeal was dismissed as the reassessment was claimed under the wrong heading, despite the goods being found as a lubricating preparation on test.

The Advocate for the appellants contended that the incorrect classification in the refund claim should not bar the correct classification of the goods. Citing relevant case laws, she argued that the goods should be classified under Heading 3403.99. The Revenue contended that the goods were not Surface Active Agents and should not be classified under Heading 3402.19. They also raised a limitation issue regarding the classification claim made by the appellants.

The Tribunal considered whether a claim for classification under a different heading than the one initially claimed could be raised at a later stage. It was found that the goods were indeed a lubricating preparation, correctly classifiable under Heading 3403.99. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions allowing the raising of legal pleas at any stage for correct classification. Thus, the objection regarding the classification claim was overruled, and the Tribunal decided to consider the reclassification plea.

Based on the Chemical Examiner's certification that the goods were a lubricating preparation, the Tribunal held that the goods fell under Heading 34.03 of the Tariff and were eligible for the concessional assessment under Notification No. 136/86. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants, granting them consequential relief.