9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Classification of imported products under the import policy.
In this case, the main issue was the classification of two imported products, namely "Torchseal 4 mm black" and "Glasseal 2.5 mm black," under the import policy. The importer argued that Torchseal should be classified as non-woven under Heading 5803.99 and Glasseal as an article of glass fiber under Heading 7019.39, while the Custom House contended that the goods should fall under Heading 68.07 as an article of bitumen. The appellant's advocate argued that Torchseal is a non-woven fabric coated with resin-modified bitumen and Glasseal is a combination of polypropylene thermoplastic polymers modified bitumen with glass fiber reinforcement, both used for waterproofing applications. The appellant disputed the Commissioner's classification under Heading 68.07, stating that the goods are not roofing boards but are solely used for waterproofing purposes, and therefore should not be classified as such. On the other hand, the departmental representative emphasized that the goods are ready for use without further processing, and their essential characteristic of being impervious to water is due to the presence of bitumen layers. The representative argued that the goods should be classified under Heading 68.07 as they are bituminized fabrics themselves, and even in doubt, Rule 3(b) of the Interpretative rules of the Tariff would support this classification. After examining the samples and descriptions of the products, the Tribunal noted that Torchseal and Glasseal are pre-fabricated waterproofing membranes with specific characteristics. The Tribunal found that Torchseal, although containing bitumen, is more than just a substrate and provides waterproofing and strength, making it unsuitable for classification under Heading 56.03. The Tribunal also concluded that Glasseal, with glass fiber reinforcement in a waterproofing product, should be classified as an article of bitumen rather than glass fiber. Ultimately, the Tribunal confirmed the Collector's classification, upheld the confiscation of the goods imported without a license, and imposed a fine. However, the penalty for mis-declaration was set aside as there was no evidence of deliberate misrepresentation by the appellant. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed in part, with the classification of the goods under Heading 68.07 confirmed, and the penalty for mis-declaration overturned.
|
