9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... drawn and sent to CRCL which gave following report:- The samples are in the form of cut piece of black/brown coloured woven fabric having soft surface on one side. It is made of polyester spun yarns on one side and polyester filament yarns on the other side. It is bonded on one side with knitted fabric made of polyester filament yarns with adhesive material. Woven fabric = 64.5%, 58.08% and 57.71% by weight Knitted fabric with adhesive material= Balance GSM (Woven fabric)= 122.7,118.4 and 120.74 GSM (Knitted fabric)=70.0,84.6 and 87.72 It is not possible to ascertain the nature of the yarns whether textured or non textured in the bonded fabric. Polyester Filament yarns 47.8%, 48.3% and 46.74% Polyester Spun Yarns&n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sp; 5907 00 Textile fabrics otherwise impregnated, coated or covered; painted canvas being theatrical scenery, studio back-cloths or the like Thus it is seen that CTH 5907 covers textile fabrics which are otherwise impregnated, coated or covered. It is obvious that for the purpose of classification the scope of the words, impregnated, coated or covered need to be interpreted by keeping in view their company with one another adopting the principle of noscitur sociis. In other word covered is to be interpreted in the context of words impregnated and coated. Thus it can scarcely be gainfully stressed that the fabrics covered by another layer of textile fabrics that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ics of polyester is covering knitted textile fabrics of polyester. A material can not be said to covering itself to be called covered material. Thus, it can not be said that the impugned goods are covered textile fabrics. The Section Note 8(b) ibid may come into play in situations e.g. when textile is covered with plastic, then as per the said note, it will get covered under Chapter 59 even if say textile material pre- dominates by weight. Once goods are held to be not covered under CTH 59.07, their classification under CTH 55.15 is too obvious to need even a line of discussion. 9. It is well known that the Customs Tariff is based on Harmonized System of Nomenclature ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbsp; When by application of Rule 2(b) or for any other reason, goods are, prima facie, classifiable under two or more headings, classification shall be affected as follows: (a) The heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description. However, when two or more headings each refer to part only of the materials 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 complet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. Thus the appellants contention that the said H.S.N. Note is not applicable for the purpose of classification in their case as there is only one material (Polyester) involved in their goods is totally untenable; indeed existence 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. 14. As stated earlier 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
