9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Classification of imported goods under Tariff Heading 90.16 or 90.28(4) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975
Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of imported goods, specifically Model 101330 FCU/Fuel Pump Test Stand for JT8D engine, under Tariff Heading 90.16 or 90.28(4) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The authorities classified the goods under Tariff Heading 90.16, while the appellant argued for classification under Tariff Heading 90.28(4) before its amendment on 28-2-1986. Upon hearing both sides, the tribunal examined the relevant Tariff Item 90.28, which covers Electrical Measuring, Checking, Analysing, or automatically controlling instruments and apparatus. The appellant contended that the goods should be classified under Tariff Heading 90.28(4) as they are electrical measuring instruments. The appellant supported this argument with technical literature from 'Engineering Measurements and Instrumentation' by L.F. Adams, which was not presented before the lower authorities. The respondent argued that the technical literature provided by the appellant was not previously available and not correlatable to the imported goods. The respondent emphasized that Tariff Heading 90.28 refers to instruments measuring, checking, analyzing, or controlling electrical quantities or phenomena, not merely electrically operated apparatus. The respondent also highlighted the importance of the operation of the instrument depending on electrical phenomena, as per CCCN Explanatory Notes. After considering the submissions, the tribunal agreed with the respondent's interpretation that Tariff Heading 90.28 pertains to instruments dealing with electrical quantities or phenomena. However, the tribunal noted that the technical literature presented by the appellant was not considered by the lower authorities and required further examination. As a result, the tribunal ordered a remand for de novo adjudication to assess whether the goods should be classified under Tariff Item 90.28(4) based on the new technical evidence provided by the appellant. The appeal was allowed for remand in light of these directions.
|
