Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2002 (3) TMI 394

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y them or under sub-heading 5703.30 of the tariff as floor covering. 2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants had imported artificial turf meant for use for out door sports and games like hockey, golf, tennis, play areas swimming pools, locker rooms, boat docks, wet areas etc.; that the impugned goods cannot be classified under sub-heading 5703.30 which covers carpets and other textile floor coverings in which textile material serve as the exposed surface when in use and including article having the characteristics of textile floor coverings and the same are meant to be used as household goods alone; that the impugned goods are artificial turfs which are used as a flooring as a substitute to grass for games like .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mbay High Court held that if imports were made according to the long-standing practice, the goods cannot be confiscated. 3. Countering the arguments Ms. Ananya Ray, learned SDR, submitted that the classification of a products depends on facts about the goods imported and as such the earlier import made buy Sidhartha International is not relevant at all, that moreover the issue involved therein was ITC Policy that is whether the import of Astro Turf was restricted one and issue of classification under Customs Tariff was not raised therein. In this regard, she referred to the decision in Philips India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (ACC), Mumbai, 2001 (132) E.L.T. 783 (T), wherein it was held that classification decided by the Licensing A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... orma invoice, certificate of manufacture, original bill of lading; that there were over writing in Bill of lading presented by the appellants. In reply the learned Advocate mentioned that catalogue has not much meaning in determining the classification of the goods; that in case of doubt the Department can get the goods examined before finalizing the classification, that they are not responsible for over writings in Bill of lading as it is not their document and as such there was no misdeclaration on their part. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The rival Headings under Customs Tariff Act read as under : 5703 - Carpets and other textile floor coverings tufted, whether or not made up 570 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... them to be described as artificial turf. No specifications of the goods have been mentioned nor any catalogue has been submitted, even though the importer was categorically asked to do so before the hearing as also during the hearing. The importer had in fact himself sought time for submitting their reply on the ground that they were asking their supplier to furnish details of composition and manufacturing process of the goods. Even the Proforma invoice dated 8-9-2000 as mentioned on the commercial invoice has not been submitted. Copy of the Bill of Lading submitted indicated overwriting/ correction in the description of the goods. Hence, importer was asked to submit original Bill of Lading but the same has not been submitted. No explanatio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... stion of classification did not arise in the said matter and the Commissioner (Appeals) only decided the issue as to whether the import was allowed under OGL or it was restricted one requiring import licence. Further as observed by the Adjudicating Authority goods to Sidhartha International were supplied by a different supplier abroad and neither the catalogue nor sample of those goods were produced, in absence of which it cannot be said that the goods imported by them were same which are impugned in the present matter. We also observe that Commissioner (Appeals) has, in the impugned order, given his findings that as per the composition sheet produced by the Appellants, the fiber used is 100% UV Olefin; primary and secondary backing is of w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates