9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Classification of dies for manufacture of scooter parts under Heading 82.05 of the Customs Tariff or under Heading 84.45/48.
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi dealt with the issue of classifying a consignment of dies for manufacturing scooter parts under Heading 82.05 or Heading 84.45/48 of the Customs Tariff. The appellant claimed classification under Heading 84.45/48, while the Assistant Collector of Customs classified them under Heading 82.05, a decision upheld by the Collector of Customs (Appeals). The main contention was whether the dies were interchangeable tools under Heading 82.05. The appellant argued that since each die was designed for a specific function and not interchangeable with others, they should be classified under Heading 84.45/48. The appellant relied on previous tribunal decisions and the definition of interchangeability from the International Organisation for Standardisation. The tribunal analyzed the Explanatory Notes to the CCCN and concluded that interchangeability under Heading 82.05 referred to tools suitable for fitting into specific machines, not capable of performing various functions. The tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that the Explanatory Notes were not considered in a previous decision, stating that the Explanatory Notes had persuasive value in interpreting tariff headings closely modeled on the CCCN. The tribunal held that the dies were classifiable under Heading 82.05, emphasizing that each die producing different parts did not render them non-interchangeable under the heading. In a separate issue, the tribunal addressed the argument that the dies could not be considered tools. The tribunal referred to the definition of "die" from a technical dictionary, which supported the classification of the goods under Heading 82.05. The tribunal also considered the rejection of appeals against previous decisions, noting that rejection did not confirm the correctness of those decisions' classification. Ultimately, the tribunal held that the goods were classifiable under Heading 82.05, corresponding to Item 51A of the Central Excise Tariff. The appeals were rejected based on the classification under Heading 82.05. Additionally, a dissenting opinion by another member of the tribunal referenced previous cases to support the rejection of classifying the goods under Tariff Heading 84.45/48, affirming the classification under Heading 82.05/8207.90. The dissenting member highlighted specific tribunal decisions to reinforce the rejection of the appellant's classification argument. The dissenting opinion concluded that the appellants were not eligible to classify the goods under Heading 84.45/48, affirming the classification under Heading 82.05/8207.90, leading to the rejection of the appeals.
|
