2023 (4) TMI 219 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported goods - plastic trigger sprayer for plastic bottles lotion pump for plastic bottle and fine mist sprayer for plastic bottles - whether classifiable under 84242000 as held by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order or under CTH 96161000 as claimed by the Revenue? - HELD THAT - The imported goods samples of which were produced by the learned counsel for the respondent have been perused. These are mounts which can be screwed on top of any bottle and can be used to dispense the contents of the bottle either in the form of a spray or as a gel. These were used, according to the learned counsel, on a large scale during COVID pandemic to sanitize hands using a gel or spray sanitizers. These are not mechanical appliances for spraying covered under Chapter 8424. These can be mounted on the bottles and used to dispense sanitisers and other liquids or gels. They can only be called Scent sprays and similar toilet sprays, and mounts and heads therefor . This heading covers not only the sprays but also the mounts and heads for the sprays. What were imported were mounts which could be fixed on any bottle. There is a very specific heading for such goods 9616 10 10 --- Scent sprays and similar toilet sprays . Learned counsel for the respondent argued that the mounts are not for scents or toilet sprays but for sanitisers this heading should not apply. This submission cannot be accepted. The issue of classification of mounts and heads used to spray/ dispense liquid soap was decided by this Tribunal in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI VERSUS RECKIT COLMAN OF INDIA LTD. 2005 (4) TMI 407 - CESTAT, MUMBAI where it was held that The use of the mounts to dispense and thus spray liquid Soap is not in doubt. We therefore cannot share the classification of Mounts and Heads for toilet sprays/dispensers to be under 84.24 the view of CC (A). We would uphold the lower authorities classification under 9616 with the consequence as arrived. The fact that the mounts were used on bottles of toilet sprays in Reckitt and Coleman and in this case they are used for sanitizers makes no difference. Appeal of Revenue dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported goods (trigger sprayer, lotion pump, fine mist sprayer) under the Customs Tariff.
2. Validity of the appeal No. 51794/2022.
3. Applicability of the Tribunal's previous ruling in Commissioner of Customs Mumbai Vs. Reckitt & Coleman of India Ltd.

Summary:

1. Classification of Imported Goods:
The core issue is whether the imported goods, namely plastic trigger sprayer, lotion pump, and fine mist sprayer, should be classified under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 84242000 as held by the Commissioner (Appeals) or under CTH 96161000 as claimed by the Revenue. The original authority's classification under CTH 39269099 was not accepted by either party. The respondent argued for classification under CTH 84242000, while the Revenue contended that these items fall under CTH 96161000. The Tribunal examined the relevant headings and concluded that the goods are not mechanical appliances for spraying covered under Chapter 8424. Instead, they are mounts and heads for sprays, thus classifiable under CTH 96161010.

2. Validity of Appeal No. 51794/2022:
Appeal No. 51794/2022 was found to be infructuous as it assailed the same impugned order as in Customs Appeal No. 51685/2021. The impugned order carried two numbers because it disposed of cross appeals by the Revenue and the importer. Consequently, Appeal No. 51794/2022 and the stay application in it were dismissed as infructuous.

3. Applicability of Previous Tribunal Ruling:
The Tribunal referred to its previous ruling in Commissioner of Customs Mumbai Vs. Reckitt & Coleman of India Ltd. [2005 (190) ELT 221 (Tri-Mum)], which dealt with the classification of mounts and heads used to spray/disperse liquid soap. The Tribunal upheld the classification under CTH 96161010, consistent with the findings in the present case. The fact that the mounts were used for sanitizers in this case, as opposed to toilet sprays in the Reckitt & Coleman case, did not alter the classification.

Conclusion:
a) Appeal No. C/51794/2022 was dismissed as infructuous.
b) The imported goods were classified under CTH 96161010 and chargeable to appropriate rates of duty.
c) Revenue's appeals No. C/51682/2021 and C/51685/2021 were allowed, setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the matters to the original authority for determining the duty based on the correct classification.