2001 (3) TMI 509 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Classification of "dry wipe marking ink" under Customs Tariff Heading 3215.90, relevance of HSN Notes, interpretation of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and the applicability of Supreme Court decisions.

Classification Issue:
The appeal dealt with the classification of "dry wipe marking ink" under Customs Tariff Heading 3215.90. The Commissioner (Appeals) initially classified the ink as "writing ink" under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, Heading 3215.10 with Nil CVD. However, the Revenue contended that the product imported was not described as "writing ink" by the importers themselves, and there was no evidence of its commonly understood meaning as a writing ink. The Revenue argued that the product should be classified under Heading 3215.90 as "other inks" based on the differentiation in the Central Excise Tariff.

Relevance of HSN Notes:
The Revenue relied on the HSN Notes, which differentiate inks into two categories: "writing inks" and "others." The Revenue argued that since the product was not described as writing ink and lacked evidence of being commonly understood as such, it should be classified as "other inks." The Tribunal acknowledged the relevance of HSN Notes in commercial and commodity taxation contexts to establish how the product is perceived. It was noted that even if the marking ink did not contain silver nitrate, it would still be understood as "other inks" by those dealing with such products commercially.

Interpretation of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985:
The Tribunal analyzed the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, which classifies inks into "writing inks" and "other inks." It was emphasized that there was no evidence to suggest that the imported ink was commonly understood as writing ink. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the product should be classified as "other inks" under Heading 3215.90, rather than as writing ink under Heading 3215.10.

Applicability of Supreme Court Decisions:
The parties referred to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Woodcraft Products, highlighting the relevance of HSN Notes for classification under the Central Excise Tariff. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented, but ultimately determined that the product imported, despite being used for writing on paper, was more commonly understood as a "marker ink" rather than a "writing ink." Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal, restoring the Order-in-Original.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the intricate legal considerations surrounding the classification of the "dry wipe marking ink" and the significance of HSN Notes, interpretation of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and the application of relevant Supreme Court decisions in resolving the classification dispute.