1998 (10) TMI 150 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues involved:
Classification of a product described in the invoice as "Sandvik Cold Hard Rolled Stainless Steel Conveyor Bands Ends Prepared for Riveted Joint."

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellants initially claimed the assessment of the goods as parts of a Band Caster machine under Heading 8479.90, which was accepted, and duty was paid accordingly.
2. A show cause notice was issued, alleging that the goods should be classified under sub-heading 7314.11 based on technical specifications, excluding them from Chapter 84 as parts of general use.
3. The Assistant Collector classified the goods under sub-heading 7314.11 as stainless steel conveyor bands with ends prepared for riveted joints, invoking Section Note 1(ij) of Section XVI to eliminate classification under Chapter 84.
4. The appellants' appeal before the Collector (Appeals) was unsuccessful, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal.
5. The appellants argued that the goods were parts of a band-caster machine, emphasizing the specific qualities of the steel used and their function in conveying molten liquid without deformity.
6. The Revenue contended that the goods should be classified under Tariff Heading 73.14 as endless belts of metal strip, falling under Section XV, based on the technical write-up provided.
7. The Tribunal analyzed the relevant tariff headings, Section Notes, and Explanatory Notes to determine the correct classification of the goods.
8. Despite the goods being specifically designed for a band-caster machine, the Tribunal noted that Note 1(ij) of Section XVI excluded endless belts of metal strip from Chapter 84, necessitating classification under Section XV.
9. The Tribunal considered the arguments regarding Tariff Heading 7314.11 and the interpretation of "cloth" to include endless bands of stainless steel, ultimately upholding the lower authorities' classification under sub-heading 7314.11.
10. The Tribunal rejected the appellants' reliance on a Supreme Court report concerning stainless steel sheets, as the specific Section Note in this case differed.
11. No additional arguments were presented, leading to the rejection of the appeal based on the classification analysis provided.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the classification dispute over the specific product in question and the application of relevant tariff headings and statutory notes to determine the correct classification under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.