9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Classification of goods under heading 2708.11 or 2708.19 for Customs duty refund claim. Analysis: The appeal involved a claim for refund of Customs duty on coal tar pitch imported by the respondent. The dispute centered around the classification of the goods under heading 2708.11 or 2708.19 of the tariff. The Assistant Collector initially upheld the classification under heading 2708.19, leading to the dismissal of the refund claim. However, on appeal, the Collector (Appeals) determined that the goods should be classified under heading 2708.11, thereby ordering the refund. This decision was contested by the department through the current appeal. The Tribunal delved into the specifics of the classification under heading 2708, which pertains to pitch and pitch coke derived from coal tar or other mineral tars. Sub-heading 11 refers to pitch obtained by blending with creosote oil or other coal tar distillates, while sub-heading 19 covers other types of pitch. The Tribunal referenced a previous case to explain the distillation process of coke, highlighting the ambiguity surrounding the term "obtained" in sub-heading 11. It was established that while pitch cannot be "obtained" by blending with creosote oil, it can be blended with such substances for specific applications, as supported by expert sources. The Tribunal examined a certificate from the manufacturer of the goods, M/s. Korea Steel Chemical Co. Ltd., which stated that the coal tar pitch supplied to various companies, including the respondent, was "obtained by blending with other coal tar distillates." This certificate corroborated the respondent's claim that the imported pitch was blended and used for specific industrial purposes. The Tribunal deemed the certificate reliable and relevant, dismissing objections related to the issuer being a trader rather than the manufacturer. The spelling error in the respondent's name on the certificate was considered inconsequential. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Collector (Appeals) to rely on the manufacturer's certificate, which supported the classification under heading 2708.11 as claimed by the respondent. The appeal from the department was dismissed, emphasizing the validity and significance of the manufacturer's certification in determining the proper classification for Customs duty refund purposes.
|
