9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (6) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtificial resin (acrylic type) and solvent. After issue of show cause notice and holding adjudication proceedings, the Dy. Collector of Customs, by Order dated 2-11-1987, held that the licence was not valid to cover the import. He confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 but allwed redemption of the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 75,000/- only. He also denied the benefit of the Customs Notification No. 444/76 and demanded Rs. 1,35,185.64 as short-levied duty on the consignment on the basis that the goods were a preparation based on TiO2 and not TiO2 itself. The classification of the goods was ordered to be under Heading No. 3208.90 of the Customs (Appeals), by the impugned order dated 4-5-1988, upheld the Dy. Col ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (obviously) under Chapter 28 but also Ti02 falling under Chapter 32. Reading through the other headings in Chapter 32, there appears to be no other heading appropriate to Ti02. If, then, the Notification specifies Ti02 falling within Chapter 32, it must be taken to refer only to Heading 32.06 (3206.10). In this context, we note that the goods are described in the invoice as Titanium Dioxide Rutile (A Prepared Pigment) . The Technical Information sheet on the product states that the product is an aqueous suspension containing Titanium Dioxide Rutile (content whereof present in this product is more than 80%), a small quantity of preservative/binding material and very small percentage of solvent for imparting uniformity while using the abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oms Laboratory says that the product is a white pasty mass (the information sheet also says so) but does not seem to have tested the Ti02 for its crystalline structure. The product must, therefore, be taken to be only Ti02 (Rutile) in suspension, in a form which admits of easier and improved use of Ti02. In this view of the matter, the reliance placed by the D.R. on the Tribunal s decision in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi, 1988 (34) E.L.T. 375 to the effect that the CCCN code given against various serial numbers in the ITC Policy is merely to facilitate collection of data and not as a guidance for interpreting the scope of the entries in the ITC Policy, is of no assistance to the Revenue. 6. In the result, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
