9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce of only one material, as stated earlier, obviates the need to carry out the predominance test. Having thus analyzed, it may be reiterated that once the impugned goods are not held to be classifiable under CTH 5907, then even the appellants do not contend that in that case too they would not be classifiable under CTH 55151230. Non supply of information - Held that:- During the hearing before CESTAT the appellants did not take up the issue of valuation but they have mentioned in the appeal papers that in spite of their request, copies of alleged contemporaneous evidence for raising the value had not been given to them. We find that the Commissioner has clearly noted in the impugned order that they were informed vide letter dated 2.2.2007 to inspect/procure copies of desired documents and the same were supplied on 22.2.2007 under proper acknowledgment. After that the appellants did not desire personal hearing and categorically wrote that the issue may be decided on merit. Thus appellants contention in this regard in their appeal papers is untenable and that may be the reason why the issue of valuation was not raised by them during hearing before Cestat. - Decided against th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 59 (iii) The value has been enhanced in an arbitrary manner. (iv)HSN Explanatory Note to Section XI which explains the scope of Note 2 to Sec. XI is not applicable as that note applies to products of two or more textile materials while the impugned goods are made out of single textile material, that is polyester. While in their appeal, the appellants have contested both the classification and the valuation, during personal hearing, the contention was confined only to classification dispute and not to valuation aspect and they also did not bring up the issue of cross examination. They only and repeatedly stressed that in view of Section Note 8(b) to section XI of Customs Tariff, the goods being covered Fabrics would merit classification under heading 59.07. 5. Learned AR, on the other hand, essentially contended that the goods are not covered fabrics as the goods are not covered by any other material and therefore as per HSN explanatory Notes, the said goods will not be classifiable under chapter heading 59.07. 6.We have considered the contentions of both sides. It is seen that CRCL report clearly brings out the nature of the goods which is woven fabri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to goods of Chapters 56 to 59. Thus, Chapter 55 will not apply only if the impugned goods fall under chapter 59 (CTH 59.07). In other words, if it is held that the goods do not fall under CTH 59.07 then the chapter note 8(b) loses all its relevance for the purpose of this case. The I.I.T. Delhi report essentially concludes that the Knitted fabrics is completely covered with woven fabrics which is in no way at variance with the fact that the impugned goods are two layers of polyester textile fabrics (one woven and the other knitted) stuck together by gumming/adhesive. A perusal of the various heading of Chapter 59 reveals that it covers textile fabrics covered with amylaceous substances (CTH 59.01) tyre cord fabrics (CTH 59.02), textile fabrics impregnated/coated/covered with plastics (59.03), Rubberized fabrics (59.06) and CTH 59.07 covers textile fabrics otherwise impregnated/coated/covered. Thus, it is contextually clear that this chapter is not to apply to two layers of textile fabrics (that too of the same material) on the ground that woven textile fabrics of polyester is covering knitted textile fabrics of polyester. A material can not be said to covering itself to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls or substances contained in mixed or composite goods or to part only of the items in a set put up for retail sale, those headings are to be regarded as equally specific in relation to those goods, even if one of them gives a more complete or precise description of the goods. (b) Mixture, composite goods consisting of different materials or made up of different components, and goods put up in sets for retail sale, which cannot be classified by reference to 3(a), shall be classified as if they consisted of the material or component which gives them their essential character, insofar as this criterion is applicable. (c) When goods cannot be classified by reference to 3(a) or 3(b), they shall be classified under the heading which occurs last in numerical order among those which equally merit consideration (emphasis supplies) In the present case, the only material is polyester and therefore there is no ambiguity requiring predominance test. In case it is contended that the impugned goods are not consisting of two or more textile fabrics of different composition as they are made of only polyester, even then it would suffice to say that as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
