9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 465X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der CTH 7307, it was incumbent upon him to at least place on record that the flanges in question were in fact for general use alone and not for specific purpose as claimed by the appellant. If every flange available in the market could be used in any industry, then perhaps the classification under a single CTH would have served that purpose, but since one size does not fit all, different classifications are provided. The classification thus depends on, inter alia, functionality as well. Hence, when an item is imported for a specific purpose, if the Revenue does not believe in the classification declared by such importer, then the same could be rejected on some palpable evidence and if required, the Revenue could always insist upon further details / explanation insofar as the function / end-use claimed by such importer is concerned, in order to ascertain the chief/primary function, to arrive at the proper classification, otherwise the purpose of having two Customs Tariff Headings loses its significance, which is not the intention of legislature. There are no substance or merits in the impugned order, to sustain the re-classification attempt made by the original authority as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 09.11.2022. 3. The Additional Commissioner of Customs- adjudicating authority having considered the reply of the importer in adjudication, vide Order-in-Original No. 101688/2023 dated 26.04.2023, however, confirmed the proposals made in the Show Cause Notice, thereby rejecting the declared classification of the importer by re-classifying the goods under dispute under CTH 7307. 4. Seriously aggrieved by the re-classification vide Order-in-Original, it appears that the importer filed first appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), Chennai, but however, even the Commissioner (Appeals-II) having rejected their appeal vide impugned Order-in-Appeal Seaport C.Cus. II No. 540/2023 dated 24.08.2023, the present appeal has been filed before this forum. 5. Heard Shri Saurabh Dixit, Ld. Advocate for the importer/appellant and Shri Rudra Pratap Singh, Ld. Additional Commissioner for the Revenue. After hearing both sides, we find that the only issue that is to be decided by us is: whether the imported item namely Flanges , is to be classified under CTH 85030090/84839000 or CTH 7307? 6. The basic rule insofar as classification under the First Schedule of the Customs T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Other, of stainless steel: 7307 21 00 -- Flanges kg. 10% 7307 22 00 -- Threaded elbows, bends and sleeves kg. 10% 7307 23 00 -- Butt welding fittings kg. 10% 7307 29 00 -- Other kg. 10% - Other : 7307 91 -- Flanges : 7307 91 10 --- Galvanised kg. 10% 7307 91 90 --- Other kg. 10% 7307 92 -- Threaded elbows, bends and sleeves : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 (i) of the Order-in- Original] and that the same could not be used anywhere else, still, the original authority at paragraph 16 assumes that the importer had resorted to mis-classification, on reasonable belief, the reason for which is very conspicuously absent. Prima facie, therefore, it appears that the original authority s apprehensions are not well-founded. This is also clear when at paragraph 17, the said authority has recorded that to the Pre-consultative Notice the importer did not file any reply, which is not the correct fact. 9.2 Further, the importer appears to have relied upon various judicial precedents, which though duly recorded, but however, no finding is given by the said authority on the applicability or otherwise of the same. When the importer has claimed that the flanges imported by it were specifically designed to suit in its industry/purpose, what was required was to examine the issue from that angle, since primarily, such examination was to be done to satisfy if the declaration / admission of the importer to that extent was correct, but however, it appears that there is not even an attempt in this regard by the original authority. He has only proceeded g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification under CTH 8503 and proposed to re-classify under CTH 7307, it was incumbent upon him to at least place on record that the flanges in question were in fact for general use alone and not for specific purpose as claimed by the appellant. 10.3 Moreover, it is also not the case of the Revenue that these flanges are not for any specific purpose as claimed by the appellant. It is relevant since, when a dispute arises based on the end-use/function, then it has to be ascertained/established that the goods in question are capable of performing multiple functions, or, at least capable of performing such functions as the items specified under the Chapter are capable of. This exercise has not at all been done by the Revenue. 10.4 Further, there is no dispute that in the matters of classification, identification of an entity is the primary step, and the identification is concerned with the goods and not with description of the goods. The description would be relevant for the application of a particular tariff entry and in several cases, a single tariff refers to a large number of goods of different types. Thus, the titles of sections, chapters and sub-chapters are looked into, fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner for the Revenue has furnished before us additional hand-outs in the form of print outs, apparently pulled out from web-sites, to buttress his arguments as to the usage of flanges, but while appreciating his efforts at this stage, however, we find that the same are insufficient to conclude that the flanges in question were in fact general in nature, contrary to the claim of the appellant as to their usage. 12.2 Further, we note that the print outs filed before us by the Ld. Additional Commissioner are the pictorial depiction of various types of flanges available in the market. It is however not his case that any of the flanges could be used by the appellant in its industry. No doubt, there may be different kinds of flanges available in the market, but it is nobody s case that all those flanges could be used by the appellant in its activity of manufacturing motors assembly/gearboxes, etc., and in any case, these are not emanating from either the Show Cause Notice or Order-in-Original, or even the Order-in-Appeal. 12.3 If every flange available in the market could be used in any industry, then perhaps the classification under a single CTH would have served that purpos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
