2018 (2) TMI 848 - AT - Customs

Classification of import goods - Detention of goods - imported Polyester Quilt cover from China - Held that - the quilt covers usually comes in pieces but in the instant case, it is in length. When the cloth is in 280 bales having the weight of 25900 Kgs., one cannot be identified as what is the length of quilt and its weight. Moreover, Apparel Export Promotion Council (AEPC) by its letter dated 1.04.2015 has declared the goods as Upholstery Fabrics . The AEPC has declared the imported bales as fabrics and not as quilt covers as there was no individual weight and/or length - imported items cannot be covered as quilt covers as there was no reference to composition, nature, structure to be identified as quilt cover‟. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority to pass the order on the pecuniary side.
2. Classification of imported goods as "Polyester Woven Fabrics" or "Polyester Quilt Covers."
3. Reliance on expert reports and previous judgments for classification determination.
4. Discrepancies in classification due to the nature and presentation of the imported goods.
5. Interpretation of industry declarations and standards in determining the classification of goods.

Jurisdiction Issue:
The appellant raised a preliminary objection regarding the competency of the adjudicating authority to pass the order on the pecuniary side. The original duty amount was below the threshold of ?5 lakh, allowing the Deputy Commissioner to examine the case as the Assessing Officer. The appellant's failure to raise this issue before the Commissioner invalidated the preliminary objection, leading to its overruling.

Classification Issue:
The dispute centered around the classification of goods imported as "Polyester Quilt Covers" from China. The Textile Committee's test report classified the items as "Polyester Woven Fabrics," leading to enhanced duty demands. The appellant contended that the goods were indeed quilt covers, supported by the Commissioner's previous classification. Discrepancies arose as the fabrics were not cut into sizes, had temporary stitches, and were potentially usable for other purposes. Industry declarations, like the one from the Apparel Export Promotion Council, further complicated the classification process.

Expert Reports and Precedents:
The appellant relied on the Textile Committee's report and a previous case involving identical quilt covers to support their classification argument. However, the Tribunal found that the nature of the imported goods, specifically their presentation in bales without individual weight or length references, made it challenging to identify them definitively as quilt covers. The Tribunal upheld the original order based on the totality of facts and circumstances.

Discrepancies in Classification:
The Tribunal noted that quilt covers typically come in pieces, whereas the imported goods were in length, making it difficult to ascertain their exact nature and weight. The absence of specific references to composition, nature, and structure to identify them as quilt covers further complicated the classification process. The Tribunal concluded that the imported items did not meet the criteria to be classified as quilt covers, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Interpretation of Industry Declarations:
The Tribunal considered industry declarations, such as the one from the Apparel Export Promotion Council classifying the goods as "Upholstery Fabrics," in its decision-making process. The lack of individual weight and length references in the imported bales, coupled with the absence of clear composition and structure details, contributed to the Tribunal's determination that the goods did not qualify as quilt covers. The original order was upheld based on these considerations.