1997 (1) TMI 229 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported fusite terminals for customs and Central Excise duty purposes under Notification 162/86-Cus.

Classification of imported fusite terminals:
The appeal involved the classification of imported fusite terminals for customs and Central Excise duty purposes. The goods were initially assessed under sub-heading No. 8536.90 of the Customs Tariff and under heading 8536.90 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellant sought a refund based on eligibility for a concessional rate of customs duty under serial number 7 of Notification No. 162/86-Cus. However, the Collector Customs (Appeals) remanded the Central Excise duty classification issue while negating the eligibility for the customs duty concession.

Refund claim and eligibility under Notification 162/86-Cus.:
The appellant applied for a refund, claiming eligibility for a concessional customs duty rate under Notification 162/86-Cus. The appellate authority rejected the claim due to insufficient evidence provided by the appellants to support their contention that the imported goods fell under the description of serial number 7 of the said notification. The burden of proof for reclassification in such circumstances was placed on the appellants as the goods had already been cleared through customs for home consumption.

Analysis of the appellate decision:
The appellate tribunal confirmed that the imported fusite terminals were correctly classified under heading 85.36 of the Customs Tariff. The benefit of the concessional rate of duty under Notification 162/86-Cus. was applicable only if the goods were for use with motors of 1.5 KW or above. The Collector Customs (Appeals) had highlighted the lack of evidence regarding the electrical ratings of the motors for which the terminals were intended, leading to the rejection of the refund claim. The appellants failed to provide substantial evidence to challenge the appellate authority's findings, as they only submitted technical data for specific compressor models without proving the connection to motors of the required rating.

Justification for reclassification and insufficient evidence:
The appellate authority emphasized that the benefit of the concessional rate of duty was restricted to goods intended for use with motors of 1.5 KW or above. The appellants' argument that the goods were meant for connection to electric motors was not adequately supported with evidence. The tribunal upheld the rejection of the claim based on the lack of material presented by the appellants to dispute the appellate authority's factual findings.

Conclusion and dismissal of the appeal:
After considering all relevant facts and circumstances, the appellate tribunal found no merit in the appeal and consequently rejected it. The decision was based on the failure of the appellants to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim for reclassification under Notification 162/86-Cus. The tribunal upheld the previous orders and dismissed the appeal accordingly.