9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 753X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... products from these materials and CTH 8477.10 specifically covers Injection Moulding Machines and, therefore, Injection Moulding Machines for working of plastics would come under Heading 8477.10. Therefore, the classification proposed in the impugned order by the customs authorities is correct in law - Following decision of Jama Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva [2012 (8) TMI 630 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] - Decided against assessee. - C/1023/12 - A/888/2012-WZB/C-I(CSTB) - Dated:- 23-11-2012 - Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan and Anil Choudhary, JJ. Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate, for the Appellant. Ms. D.M. Durando, Dy. Commissioner (A.R.), for the Respondent. ORDER The appeal, stay and early he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority and dismissed the appeal and reconfirmed the classification under Heading No. 8477.10. It is against this order, the appellant is before us. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that they are manufacturing footwear and the machinery is Multicolour/multimould machinery for making footwear and therefore, the goods are rightly classifiable under Heading 8453. Notification No. 39/2010 excludes Multicolour/multimould machinery for making footwear, Rotary injection moulding machinery for making footwear and footwear sole/strap/heel injection moulding machine classifiable under CTH 8453 from levy of the anti-dumping duty. It is further submitted that as per the Chartered Engineer s certificate produced by the appellant from M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utomatic rotary type direct injecting and forming machine that can produce no goods other than footwear. However, I find that the Chartered Engineer s sweeping statement is not backed by any documentary basis. Similarly, the importer has not produced product specifications to corroborate the same and accordingly, there is no reason not to conclude that the clamping force is other than 40 tons, attracting anti-dumping notification. I have also taken cognizance of CESTAT Appeal Order No. A/392/11/ CSTB/C-I, dated 4-8-2011 on the similar issue. Therefore, she submits that the assessment of the goods under CTH 8477 is correct and needs to be upheld. She also relies on the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Jama Corporation Pvt. Ltd. rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... correct in law. This issue came up before this Bench in the case of Jama Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva - 2012 (277) E.L.T. 172 (Tri.-Mum.) and this Tribunal in the said order upheld the classification of Plastic Injection Moulding Machine under Heading No. 8477.10 of the Customs Tariff. 5.2 Therefore, the only question left to be decided is whether clamping capacity of the machine is ranging between 40 to 1000 tons. As per certificate produced by the appellant, the clamping capacity ranges between 2.5 to 3 tons. The adjudicating authority has rebutted this claim only on the ground that the plate on the machine shows the clamping force as 40 tons and the same was deduced to be the injection force on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
