1983 (9) TMI 281 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported product under Customs Tariff Schedule of 1975.

Analysis:
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the correct classification of the product "silicone emulsion" imported by the appellants under the Customs Tariff Schedule of 1975. The central issue was whether the product should be assessed under Heading No. 39.01/06 as determined by the lower authorities or under Heading No. 34.01/07(2) as claimed by the appellants. The appellants argued that the product should be classified under Heading No. 34.01/07(2) as a lubricating preparation based on its use as a mould releasing agent in their factory. They relied on a tariff ruling and the CCCN Explanatory Notes to support their classification. On the other hand, the respondents contended that silicones, including silicone emulsions, fall under Heading No. 39.01/06 as per the statutory notes of Chapter 39 of the Customs Tariff Schedule. They also referred to expert sources to establish the common use of silicone oils and greases as mould release agents.

The Tribunal carefully considered the arguments presented by both sides. It noted that the statutory notes of Chapter 39 clearly classified silicones in liquid or pasty forms under Heading No. 39.01/06. The product imported by the appellants was declared as "Silicone emulsion" in the Bill of Entry and invoices, without evidence to support its classification as a lubricating preparation under Heading No. 34.03. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of statutory notes and the description of the product in determining its correct classification. Additionally, it highlighted the persuasive value of CCCN Explanatory Notes, which indicated that silicone oils used as mould release agents fell under Heading No. 39.01 of the CCCN, corresponding to 39.01/06 in the Indian Tariff.

Based on the analysis of relevant provisions, descriptions, and expert opinions, the Tribunal concluded that the product should indeed be classified under Heading No. 39.01/06 of the Customs Tariff Schedule. Therefore, the appeal was rejected, finding no merit in the appellants' argument for a different classification.