2019 (11) TMI 257 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported goods - gear reduction blank - to be classified under tariff item 8483 40 00 or under tariff item 8708 94 00 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975? - HELD THAT - Tribunal in case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI VERSUS BEST CAST (P) LTD. 2000 (10) TMI 91 - CEGAT, CHENNAI has occasion to decide the classification of gear box part and clutch, wherein it is held that the proper classification of the parts gear box and part of clutch will be under 8483.00 of Central Excise Tariff and not under Chapter Heading 8708 as a part of motor vehicles. There is no reason to classify the goods under heading 8708 as the part of motor vehicles as held in the impugned order. The parts which has been imported is part of column type electric powers steering system (CEPS) and not part of motor vehicle so as to classify under chapter 8708 of Customs Tariff. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Act.
2. Applicability of Section Notes and General Interpretative Rules.
3. Reliance on judicial precedents for classification.
4. Validity of the assessment order and the order of the Commissioner (Appeal).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Imported Goods under Customs Tariff Act:
The primary issue in this case is the correct classification of the imported "gear reduction blank." The appellant classified the goods under tariff item 8483 40 00 as "Gears and gearing, other than toothed wheel, chain sprockets and other transmission elements presented separately." However, the customs authorities reclassified the goods under tariff item 8708 94 00, which pertains to parts and accessories of motor vehicles, specifically steering wheels, steering columns, and parts thereof.

2. Applicability of Section Notes and General Interpretative Rules:
The appellant argued that the classification under 8483 40 00 is appropriate based on Section XVI of the Customs Tariff Act, which excludes articles of Section XVII from its purview. They contended that the impugned goods are not specifically mentioned in Section XVII and thus should not be excluded. The appellant also relied on Rule 3(a) of the General Rules of Interpretation, which states that a heading providing a more specific description should be preferred over a general one. The appellant cited various judicial precedents to support their argument that the goods should be classified under 8483 40 00 rather than the more general 8708 94 00.

3. Reliance on Judicial Precedents for Classification:
The appellant cited several cases to bolster their argument:
- Videocon Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Aurangabad: Emphasized the exclusion of articles under Section XVII.
- Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak vs. Kafila Forge Limited: Held that transmission shafts should be classified under 84.83.
- Bharat Fritz Werner (P) Ltd vs. Collector of C. Excise, Bangalore: Gears specifically described in a particular heading should be classified under that heading.
- Commissioner of C. Ex. vs. Best Cast (P) Ltd.: Steering gears should be classified under 8483 40 00 as per HSN Explanatory Note.
The respondent, on the other hand, relied on decisions like Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. and Telco Ltd., where similar goods were classified under 8708.

4. Validity of the Assessment Order and the Order of the Commissioner (Appeal):
The Tribunal examined the impugned order and the submissions from both sides. They noted that the classification of the goods as parts of gear box and clutch under 8483.00 had been upheld in previous cases like Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai vs. Best Cast Pvt. Ltd. and Eimco Elecon (India) Pvt Ltd. vs Commissioner of C. EX., Vadoara. The Tribunal found that the impugned goods are parts of the steering column and should be classified under 8483 40 00, as they are not excluded by Section Note 1(k) to Section XVI. The Tribunal also noted that the decision in Telco Ltd. did not consider Interpretative Rule 3(a) and was thus per incuriam.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the goods should be classified under 8483 40 00 and not under 8708 as parts of motor vehicles. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The parts imported were identified as part of a column-type electric power steering system (CEPS) and not as parts of motor vehicles, thus justifying their classification under 8483 40 00.

← Previous Next →