9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 951 - AT - CustomsClassification of the imported goods - Insoluble Sulphur - Department was of the view that because of the presence of oil, the goods will not be classifiable under Customs Tariff Entry 2503 0010 which is applicable to Sulphur but will be classifiable under CTH 3812 3030 - Held that - The imported goods have been declared as Insoluble Sulphur but the doubt in classification has arisen because of the presence of 20% oil as found during testing of the sample of the imported goods - classification of the goods ordered under CTH 2503 0010 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues: Classification of imported goods due to the presence of oil.
In the present case, the appellant imported "Insoluble Sulphur" from Malaysia, which was found to be mixed with 20% oil. The dispute revolved around the classification of the imported goods under Customs Tariff Entry 2503 0010 or CTH 3812 3030. The Department contended that due to the presence of oil, the goods should be classified under CTH 3812 3030, leading to a demand for differential duty. The appellant argued that despite the presence of oil, the nature of the product remained unchanged, and thus, it should be classified under Chapter 25. The appellant relied on previous tribunal decisions supporting the classification of similar commodities under CTH 25.01. Upon hearing both parties, the Tribunal analyzed the case laws cited by the appellant and noted that the classification of "Insoluble Sulphur" containing oil had been previously addressed. Referring to the decision in the case of Apollo Tyres, where a similar issue was settled, the Tribunal upheld the classification under heading 25.01/32(10) CTA. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the earlier decision and ruled in favor of classifying the goods under CTH 2503 0010, granting consequential relief to the appellant. Consequently, the impugned order demanding differential duty was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The Tribunal's decision was based on the precedent set by its earlier ruling on the same commodity, emphasizing consistency in classification.
|
