9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Classification of imported goods under Tariff Heading 89.07 as "other floating structures" instead of Tariff Heading 89.06 or 89.05 as "Hull" or "vessel". Analysis: The appellant imported goods declared as "Completely assembled Hull" and sought assessment under Tariff Heading 89.06 or alternatively under Tariff Heading 89.05. However, the authorities classified the goods as "other floating structures" under Tariff Heading 89.07, considering them not having the character of a vessel. The lower appellate authority defined "Hull" as the body/shell/frame of a ship/vessel and emphasized the necessity of navigability for classification. It was ruled that the imported goods lacked the required shape/size for navigability, disregarding certificates and descriptions indicating navigability. The lower authority relied on the end-use of the goods as a floating hotel, following a Supreme Court judgment. The appellant contested this decision, arguing that the imported goods were navigable, supported by certificates like the Port Clearance Certificate and International Load Line Certificate. The appellant emphasized the definition of vessels and floating structures under Chapter 89 and highlighted the navigability of the goods during their journey from Singapore to Calcutta. The Tribunal analyzed the classification under Chapter 89, distinguishing between vessels and floating structures. It acknowledged the certificates provided by the appellant as evidence of the goods being a "hull" and navigable. The Tribunal found that the imported goods did not fit the description of "floating structures" under Tariff Heading 89.07, as they were designed for transportation and not stationary use like the items listed under that heading. Consequently, the Tribunal classified the goods under Tariff Heading 89.06, granting the appellant the associated benefits. In conclusion, the Tribunal overturned the lower authority's decision, emphasizing the distinction between vessels and floating structures. It deemed the imported goods as a "hull" under Tariff Heading 89.06 due to their navigability and purpose for transportation, rejecting the classification as "other floating structures." The Tribunal also critiqued the lower authority's reliance on a Supreme Court judgment, clarifying that end-use alone should not dictate classification.
|
