9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Act - Sub-heading 8475.90 vs. sub-heading 7115.90 and 8479.82. Analysis: 1. The appeal involved a dispute over the classification of goods imported by M/s. Schott Glass India P. Ltd. The main issue was whether the imported goods, including Forehearth, Stirrer, and Nozzle, should be classified under sub-heading 8475.90 as parts of a machine for manufacturing or hot working glass, as claimed by the appellant, or under sub-heading 7115.90 as articles of Platinum and under 8479.82 as confirmed by the Collector (Appeals). 2. The appellant imported the mentioned goods, classified under heading 8475.10, but the Department classified them differently. The appellant later filed a claim for a refund of duty, asserting that the goods should be classified under sub-heading 8475.90. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs partly allowed the refund, but the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, stating that the goods were made of platinum and not related to the functioning of a glass forming machine. 3. The appellant's representative argued that the imported products were essential parts of the glass tube forming machine used for pharmaceutical purposes. He detailed the manufacturing process, highlighting the role of each item in ensuring the quality and homogeneity of the molten glass necessary for forming glass tubes. The advocate contended that these items should be classified under sub-heading 8475.90 as parts of a glass forming machine, citing relevant provisions under Chapter 71 and Section XVI. 4. The advocate further emphasized that the impugned goods were integral to the glass forming process and should be classified under Heading 8475.10. He referred to the exclusion of machinery parts from Chapter 71 and the classification rule under Note 2(b) to Section XVI, supporting the appellant's claim for a duty refund, provided they demonstrate that the duty incidence was not passed on to others. 5. In response, the Department's representative argued that the appellant's delay in challenging the classification, lack of evidence supporting their claim, and failure to substantiate the goods' connection to the glass forming machine were grounds for rejecting the refund claim. However, the appellant maintained that they had submitted relevant documents to the Deputy Commissioner to support their classification argument. 6. Upon reviewing both parties' submissions, the Tribunal found discrepancies in the Deputy Commissioner's findings regarding the forehearth's role in the glass forming process. Considering the manufacturing process and relevant classification rules, the Tribunal concluded that the imported goods were indeed parts of a glass forming machine and should be classified under Heading 8475.10. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant's eligibility for a duty refund, subject to verifying that the duty incidence had not been passed on to others.
|
