2002 (3) TMI 394 - AT - Customs

Turf - Artificial turf - Import - Misdeclaration - Confiscation - Penalty - Classification of goods

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported goods as "artificial turf" under sub-heading 9506.99 or as floor covering under sub-heading 5703.30 of the Customs Tariff Act.

Analysis:
1. Classification Dispute: The appellant, M/s. Floor & Furnishing India (P) Ltd., contended that the imported artificial turf was for outdoor sports like hockey, golf, tennis, and not textile floor coverings meant for household use. They argued that the goods lacked textile characteristics and should be classified under sub-heading 9506.99. The appellant cited precedents supporting their claim, emphasizing that onus lies on the Revenue to prove classification.

2. Revenue's Argument: The Revenue, represented by Ms. Ananya Ray, countered that the product classification depended on factual evidence, not previous imports. They highlighted that the goods resembled tufted carpets made of man-made textile material, falling under sub-heading 5703.30. The Revenue emphasized the lack of evidence supporting the appellant's claim, including the absence of a manufacturer's catalogue and specific game utility.

3. Judicial Analysis: The Tribunal examined the Customs Tariff Act's rival headings, noting the definitions of textile floor coverings and sports equipment in Chapter 57 and Chapter 95, respectively. The Adjudicating Authority's findings described the imported goods as tufted carpet/floor coverings, lacking distinctive characteristics of artificial turf. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's assessment, emphasizing the appellant's failure to provide substantial evidence or basis for classification under sub-heading 9506.99.

4. Decision and Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the classification of the goods as floor coverings under sub-heading 5703.30, rejecting the appellant's claim of misdeclaration. While reducing the redemption fine and penalty, the Tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence supporting the appellant's classification and the absence of material justifying the claimed heading. The appeal was disposed of, affirming the Revenue's classification and addressing the penalty issue.

This detailed analysis highlights the arguments presented by both parties, the legal principles applied, and the Tribunal's decision based on the evidence and precedents cited during the proceedings.