1996 (3) TMI 195 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Claim for refund of duty based on classification of the product 'Roll take up machine' under Heading 84.59(ii) of the Customs Tariff Act. Alternative claim for classification under Heading 84.45/48 as a machine tool for working metals.

Analysis:
The appellants sought a refund of duty, arguing that their 'Roll take up machine' should be classified under Heading 84.59(ii) of the Customs Tariff Act. They claimed the machine is designed for producing a commodity, as it is motor-driven with adjustable speed and forms part of their automatic welded wire mesh making plant. Additionally, they contended that the machine could be classified as a machine tool for working metals under Heading 84.45/48.

The Tribunal heard the arguments and noted that the machine primarily rolls and cuts welded wire mesh, with no evidence presented to support the assertion that it works on metal. The technical write-up submitted by the appellants was not available for review, leading the Tribunal to uphold the impugned order, as the machine's functions were limited to rolling and cutting wire mesh.

In a separate order, it was observed that the appellants failed to provide essential documentation such as a catalogue or technical write-up to substantiate their claims. The Tribunal determined that the machine did not meet the criteria for classification as a machine tool for metalworking under Heading 84.45/48, as no supporting evidence was presented.

Furthermore, the appellants could not demonstrate how the machine qualified as a machine designed for the production of a commodity under Heading 84.59(2). A comparison to textile fabric folding and cutting machines under Heading 84.40 was deemed invalid, as the specific provisions of Heading 84.40 did not apply to the appellants' machine. The Tribunal emphasized that merely rolling and cutting welded wire mesh did not constitute the production of a commodity, leading to the rejection of the appellants' claims.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concurred with the initial decision and dismissed the appeal, as the appellants failed to substantiate their classification claims under both Heading 84.59(ii) and Heading 84.45/48.