1984 (6) TMI 236 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported goods under the appropriate heading of the Customs Tariff Schedule.
2. Claim for refund of the differential duty.
3. Liability for additional (countervailing) duty of Customs.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Imported Goods:
The primary issue was whether the imported goods described as "cut and calendered steel fabrics" should be classified under heading No. 73.27/28 as claimed by the appellant (MRF) or under heading No. 40.05/16(1) as determined by the lower authorities.

The appellants argued that the imported goods had a steel content of 57.35% and a rubber content of only 28.43%, asserting that they should be classified as an article of steel under heading No. 73.27/28. They relied on Interpretative Rule 3(b) of the Tariff Schedule, emphasizing that the reinforcing material is steel fabric, which gives the tyre its essential character.

The lower authorities had classified the goods under heading No. 40.05/16(1), arguing that the steel wires were completely covered with rubber and were used to reinforce rubber sheets in the manufacture of radial tyres.

The Tribunal examined the headings and noted that heading 40.05/16(1) included "vulcanised rubber thread and cord, whether or not textile covered, and textile thread covered or impregnated with vulcanised rubber." However, the goods in question were steel gauze or steel fabric, not textile thread.

The Tribunal found that the goods were more appropriately classifiable under heading No. 73.27/28, which specifies "reinforcing fabric of iron or steel wire." The essential character of the goods was determined to be reinforcing steel fabric, not an article of rubber. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the goods should be classified under heading No. 73.27/28.

2. Claim for Refund of Differential Duty:
MRF had initially cleared the goods on payment of duty assessed under heading No. 40.05/16(1) but later claimed reassessment under heading No. 73.27/28 and consequential refund of the differential duty.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ordering that the goods be reclassified under heading No. 73.27/28 and that consequential relief be provided within three months from the date of communication of the order.

3. Liability for Additional (Countervailing) Duty of Customs:
The Tribunal also addressed the issue of the claim for refund of additional (countervailing) duty of Customs. This claim was not raised before the lower authorities, and the basis for the claim was not elaborated in the revision application or during the hearing.

The Tribunal observed that since the claim for refund of countervailing duty was not made before the lower authorities, it could not be permitted to be raised at this stage. Therefore, this claim was not entertained.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the imported goods should be reclassified under heading No. 73.27/28, and consequential relief should be granted within three months. However, the claim for refund of additional (countervailing) duty was not entertained as it was not raised before the lower authorities and lacked elaboration. The appeal was thus allowed in part, providing relief on the primary issue of classification.