1987 (9) TMI 288 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff, Validity of Import License

In this case, the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, heard an appeal regarding the classification of imported goods and the validity of the import license. The appellants imported a consignment declared as "Decorative Paper" but Customs found it to be "design embossed plastic sheeting used for wall covering." The Assistant Collector confiscated the goods and imposed a fine. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) upheld the classification under Heading 39.01/06 as high-grade imitation leather. The appellant argued that the goods were not entirely plastic, citing relevant legal decisions. The department contended that the product was wall covering, not paper, and the previous judgment cited was inapplicable. The Tribunal noted that the goods were described and invoiced as decorative paper, placing the burden of proof on the department to show otherwise. The Custom House tests confirmed the product as decorative paper with a significant PVC content. However, the Tribunal disagreed with the classification as a plastic product, emphasizing the paper base's essential character despite PVC embossing. The Tribunal highlighted the common use of synthetic resins in decorative papers and criticized the Assistant Collector's classification as "design embossed plastic wall covering." The Collector (Appeals) failed to provide a basis for their classification as high-grade imitation leather, leading to its rejection. The Tribunal ultimately classified the goods under Item 48.01/21, confirming the import license's validity. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants.