9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Classification of imported glass cylinders under Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Whether correctly assessed under Heading 70.21 or should be under Heading 90.10 for exemption from countervailing duty. Analysis: The dispute in this case revolves around the classification of imported glass cylinders used in photo-copying machines under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The appellants contended that the cylinders should be classified under Heading 90.10 instead of Heading 70.21 to avail exemption from countervailing duty. The Department upheld the original classification under Heading 70.21, leading to the rejection of the appellants' refund claims. During the hearing, the appellants presented several arguments to support their classification under Heading 90.10. They emphasized that the cylinders were specifically designed for use in photo-copying machines and had no other general purpose. They referenced the catalogues of the suppliers to highlight the specialized nature of the cylinders. Additionally, they pointed out the relevant Notes to Chapter 70 and Chapter 90 of the Customs Tariff Act to support their classification argument. On the other hand, the Department's Representative argued that the cylinders should be classified under Heading 70.21 as they were essentially articles of glass, manufactured by well-known glass suppliers. He cited previous orders of the Tribunal to support this classification. The Tribunal carefully considered the arguments from both sides and analyzed the nature and purpose of the glass cylinders. They noted that the cylinders were specially designed components of photo-copying machines, as evidenced by the supplier catalogues and certificates. The Tribunal emphasized that classification under the Customs Tariff Act is based on statutory parameters, not trade parlance. They concluded that the cylinders fell under Heading 90.10 due to their specific functional role in photo-copying machines. Moreover, the Tribunal acknowledged the recent change in the Department's classification practice and the order of the Collector (Appeals) supporting the appellants' classification. They distinguished the analogies provided by the Department's Representative and set aside the impugned orders, allowing both appeals in favor of the appellants with consequential relief. In summary, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, classifying the glass cylinders under Heading 90.10 for exemption from countervailing duty based on their specialized use as components of photo-copying machines.
|
