1996 (2) TMI 212 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported goods under Heading 84.65 or 8417(1) for suspended particle drying plant Atomizer Wheel.

In this case, the appellants imported "Essential parts for suspended particle drying plant Atomizer Wheel" and sought a reassessment of the classification, contending that it should be under Heading 8417(1) instead of 84.65. The Assistant Collector rejected the request due to lack of reference numbers correlating with the drawings. The Collector (Appeals) also dismissed the petition, considering the part as one of general use without specific references in the invoice. The appellants argued that the Atomizer Wheel is crucial for suspended particle drying plants, especially in dairy product operations. They supported their claim with a catalogue from the supplier, NIRO Components, demonstrating the use of the Atomizer Wheel in spray drying. They emphasized that Heading 84.17 covering machinery for material treatment, including drying, was the appropriate classification. The appellants clarified that the machinery was specifically for drying milk, making it fall under 8417(1) and not sub-heading 2. The department highlighted the absence of model or part numbers in the documents, leading to classification challenges. Despite the catalogue showing the Atomizer Wheel's use in spray drying, the department argued for classification under 84.65, citing the lack of specific milk-drying references in the catalogue. The appellants revealed their collaboration with NIRO Components for dairy plant machinery, specifically for skimmed milk powder production. The Tribunal acknowledged the strong arguments presented by the appellants, supported by the NIRO Components' catalogue, which lacked departmental evidence for general use classification. Referring to Section 2(b) of Section XIV, the Tribunal noted the essential nature of the Atomizer Wheel for suspended particle drying plants. The Tribunal also highlighted the absence of challenges to the part's essentiality during the original assessment. The appellants' detailed submission on the machinery's use and the lack of contradicting evidence from the department further strengthened their case. The Tribunal acknowledged the absence of model or part numbers in the documents but considered the appellants successful in proving the Atomizer Wheel's principal use in drying plants. The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between sub-headings 1 and 2 of Heading 84.17, indicating different duty rates based on use, particularly for milk processing. While directing classification under Heading 84.17, the Tribunal left the determination of the appropriate sub-heading to the original authority for reassessment based on the specific use of the imported machinery for dairy product drying.