9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Classification of imported product as synthetic rubber under Customs Chapter Heading 40.02 or 40.05, refund claim rejection, challenge to classification, substantiation of claim, refusal to disclose product formulation, reliance on Chemical Examiner's report, applicability of Explanatory Note on mastics based on rubber, interpretation of product literature. Classification and Refund Claim Rejection: The appeal concerned the classification of an imported product named "Glasticord 450" as synthetic rubber under Customs Chapter Heading 40.02 or 40.05 and the subsequent rejection of the refund claim by the authorities. The initial classification under Chapter sub-heading 3214.90 as a sealant based on test results was not challenged by the appellants. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim due to lack of evidence to substantiate the claim, supported by the supplier's refusal to disclose the product's exact formulation. The Commissioner upheld the rejection, emphasizing the product's function as a sealant based on documentary evidence and test results, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Challenge to Classification and Substantiation of Claim: The appellant argued that despite not challenging the classification initially, they paid duty under protest, allowing them to claim a refund by proving the product as synthetic rubber under Chapter 40. They relied on technical literature describing the product as a flexible synthetic rubber strip used for sealing applications. However, the authorities emphasized the importance of challenging the initial classification and providing evidence to rebut the Chemical Examiner's report. The authorities maintained that the product's function as a sealant aligned with the classification under Chapter 32, supported by the Explanatory Note on mastics based on rubber. Reliance on Product Literature and Judicial Precedents: The appellant further relied on the product literature and cited judicial precedents to support their claim of the product being synthetic rubber. However, the authorities stressed that the supplier's non-disclosure of the product's formulation and the product's function as a sealant based on the literature indicated its classification under Chapter 32. They argued that the judgments cited by the appellant were based on evidence, unlike the present case where the supplier's unwillingness to disclose details hindered claim substantiation. Final Decision and Upholding of Authorities' Findings: After considering the arguments, the Tribunal upheld the authorities' decisions, emphasizing the lack of challenge to the initial classification, absence of rebuttal evidence, and the product's sealant function as per the literature. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to substantiate their claim of the product being synthetic rubber under Chapter 40, leading to the rejection of the appeal.
|
