1996 (4) TMI 337 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported dental goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act (CTA) and Customs Tariff Act (CET).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification Dispute:
The case revolved around the classification of imported dental goods initially assessed as a dental chair under Heading 94.01/04 of the CTA and Tariff Item 68 of the CET. The importer later requested reassessment under Heading 90.17/18 of the CTA for dental equipment, providing a split-up value for the items in the invoice. The Collector (Appeals) subsequently reassessed the hydraulic chair under Heading 90.16/18, leading to the appeal by the Revenue.

2. Arguments and Legal Precedents:
The Department contended that the dental chair should be classified under Heading 94.01/04, not Chapter 90, based on the exclusion of dental chairs from Chapter 90 of the Brussels Nomenclature (BTN). Reference was made to the alignment of Chapters 90 and 94 of the BTN with the customs tariff. Legal arguments included the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Roplas (India) Ltd. v. UOI and the Supreme Court in Elpro International Ltd. v. Joint Secretary, emphasizing the classification of specialized items like dental chairs.

3. Decision and Reasoning:
After considering both parties' submissions, the Tribunal agreed with the Department's reliance on the BTN for classification. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's ruling in CCE, Shillong v. Wood Craft Product Ltd., highlighting the importance of the Harmonized System Nomenclature (HSN) for tariff classification. It was noted that the alignment of the Central Excise Tariff with the BTN rendered previous case laws inapplicable. Due to the exclusion of dental chairs from Chapter 90 and their inclusion in Chapter 94 of the BTN, the hydraulic chair was classified under Heading 94.01/04, overturning the Collector's order.

4. Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the classification of the hydraulic chair under Heading 94.01/04, setting aside the Collector's order and ruling in favor of the Revenue. The judgment emphasized the significance of international nomenclature like the HSN for interpreting tariff classifications and highlighted the impact of alignment with the BTN on classification decisions.