9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Classification of imported part for refund of excess duty under Notification No. 105/89 Cus.
In this case, the appellant imported a Thermal Print Head 5081-3017 for a Gas Chromatograph Model 5840A. The dispute arose regarding the correct classification of the imported part under the Customs tariff for the purpose of claiming a refund of excess duty paid. The appellant argued that the part should be classified under Heading 9027.20, while the Customs authorities classified it under Heading 8473.30. The appellant claimed that the part was specifically designed for use with the Gas Chromatograph and should be exempt from duty under Notification No. 105/89 Cus. The appellant filed an application for refund of excess duty paid on the imported part, stating that the part was a tailor-made component of the Gas Chromatograph and should be classified under Heading 9027.20. The appellant argued that the part was not a generic part falling under any other heading in Chapter 90 or Chapter 84 of the Customs tariff. The Customs authorities, however, rejected the refund claim, asserting that the part should be classified as a part of a microprocessor/printer falling under Heading 84.71, rather than as a part of the Gas Chromatograph under Heading 9027.20. The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and examined the technical aspects of the Gas Chromatograph and the imported part. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's arguments were based on their own views and write-up, which lacked technical evidence to substantiate their classification claim. The Tribunal emphasized the need for concrete material proof to support the classification claim, especially considering the specific nature of the imported part as a spare for the Gas Chromatograph. Since the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the part was exclusively designed for the Gas Chromatograph and fell under Heading 9027.20, the Tribunal rejected the appeal for refund of excess duty as unsubstantiated. Overall, the judgment focused on the correct classification of the imported part for the purpose of claiming a refund of excess duty under Notification No. 105/89 Cus. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing concrete technical evidence to support classification claims, especially for specialized components like the Thermal Print Head for the Gas Chromatograph. The decision highlighted the requirement for substantiating claims with material proof rather than relying solely on assertions or views expressed by the appellant.
|
