9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Classification of imported tobacco cutting machine under Heading 84.59(1) or 84.59(2)
In this case, the appellant imported a tobacco cutting machine and claimed its classification under Heading 84.59(2), while the Department classified it under Heading 84.59(1). The dispute revolved around whether a machine capable of both stripping and cutting tobacco leaf should be classified under Heading 84.59(2) based on the conjunction "and" between stripping and cutting. The appellant argued that stripping and cutting are separate processes requiring different machines, supported by evidence from the Tobacco Board of India and the Tobacco Advisory Council of London. They also referenced a pamphlet and brochures to demonstrate the distinction between stripping and cutting operations. The Department contended that only a machine capable of both functions could be classified under Heading 84.59(2). However, they failed to provide legal or technical support for their argument. The Tribunal considered the submissions and evidence presented. They noted that stripping and cutting of tobacco leaves are distinct processes separated in space and time. The Certificate of the Tobacco Board of India confirmed that no machine could perform both functions simultaneously during the relevant period. Referring to legal principles, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of interpreting legislation to avoid rendering it meaningless. They cited precedents and legal provisions allowing for variations in wording to give reasonable meaning to entries. In light of these considerations, the Tribunal interpreted Heading 84.59(2) to include machines capable of either stripping or cutting tobacco leaf, concluding that the imported item should be classified under this heading. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was accepted in favor of the appellant.
|
