Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 945 - AT - CustomsClassification of imported goods - vitrifiable enamels and glazes - whether the imported goods are to be classified as Glass Frit under CTH 32074000 or Vitrifiable Enamels & Glaze under CTH 32072010 - no detailed chemical examination carried on - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Revenue has not undertaken any chemical examination/ test of the goods to show that the goods in question were not Glass Frit but Ceramic Glaze. When the Revenue had an apprehension that the products in question has been mis-classified as Frit the Revenue should have got the goods chemically examined. The terminology used by the supplier or the statement of the importer cannot be the only ground to classify the product as Glaze - Not only the nature of the product, it was very well open for the revenue to investigate as to how the imported product was put to use. Merely on the basis of the statement, the classification of the product cannot be fixed. The Custom Tariff Entry 32072010 is for “Vitrifiable Enamels and glaze”, which means that the vitrifiable glaze shall be classified in the said Chapter heading. The CTH 32074000 is for glass frit and other glasses in the form of powder, granules and flakes. As per the adjudicating authority and the Revenue itself, the major difference between the glass frit and glaze is physical properties and appearance. When such a view has been taken by the adjudicating authority, in that case, he should have described / discussed the physical properties and appearance of the goods to finalize the classification of the impugned goods, which was not done. The HSN Explanation considers Glass Frit as the intermediate / preparation to make vitrifiable glaze and after preparing the glass Frit, suitable for further use for glazing, it can be considered as vitrifiable glaze - In the present case, as informed by M/s Vidres S.A., Spain, the product in question is merely glass frit and some additional marginal raw materials, which were added in powder form. Only on this basis it cannot be concluded that it is Vitrified glaze. Also as per the email of supplier, the addition of raw materials to already formed Glass Frit is to cater to the various requirement of each individual customer. However this cannot be interpreted so as to conclude that the product is vitrified ceramic glaze at the time of import per se. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The issue involved is of interpretation and classification of goods. The Appellant had classified the goods on the basis of supplier’s invoice. Even in case of past import the dispute of classification was not raised by the revenue - the malafide intention or suppression on the part of the Appellant is not proved - demand is barred by limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|