Classification of Import Goods - Applicability of General Rules for Interpretation

The following question was raised before the honorable Supreme Court:

Whether the goods in question are components and cannot be treated as complete colour Television sets and hence the duty demand, confiscation of penalty are unsustainable?

Where the goods can be classified under a particular heading or sub-heading, is there any requirement to make a reference to Rule 2(a) of interpretive rules?

In this matter, the SCN was issued alleging that:

The evasion of duty on the part of the respondent on the CKD (completely knocked down) Kits of CTVs by misdeclaring them as CTV components.

Department also asserted that the respondents had contravened the provisions of the Exim Policy 1992-97 by importing CKD Kits of the CTVs without an import license and thereby making the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act.

Honorable Supreme Court has discussed the issue in detail and decided as:

-       According to Rule 1 titles of sections and chapters in the Schedule are provided for ease of reference only. But for legal purposes, classification "shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relevant sector or chapter Notes". If neither the heading nor the notes suffice to clarify the scope of a heading, then it must be construed according to the other following provisions contained in the Rules. Rule-I gives primacy to the Section and Chapter Notes along with terms of the headings. They should be first applied. If no clear picture emerges then only can one resort to the subsequent rules

-       Section XVI provides mandate for classification of the parts of machines falling under Section XVI. In terms of Rule 1 of Interpretative Rules, invocation of Rule 2(a) for certain categories of goods covered in Section XVI like the goods of CTVs are prohibited.

-       Goods brought were not having the essential character of CTVs. We do not find anything to take a view that the goods were in unassembled or dis-assembled condition and they should be taken to be the complete CTVs, particularly when there is no finding recorded anywhere on facts that all these goods could make 1500 CTVs.

(For full text of judgment - visit 2008 -TMI - 30809 - SUPREME COURT)