TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal rejected: Glass rings classified as articles of glass, not electrical insulators.</h1> <h3>LE. INDUSTRIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, (AC), MUMBAI</h3> LE. INDUSTRIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, (AC), MUMBAI - 2005 (180) E.L.T. 409 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Correct classification of small pieces of Glass Rings imported by the appellant.2. Interpretation of Customs Tariff headings 8546.10 and 7020.00.3. Application of Rule 2(a) of General Rules for interpretation of Tariff.4. Determining whether the glass rings are usable as electrical insulators at the time of importation.5. Classification of the glass rings as raw material or finished goods.Analysis:1. The dispute in the appeal revolves around the classification of Glass Rings imported by the appellant. The appellant claims classification under Heading 8546.10 as Electrical Insulators, while the authorities classify them under Heading 7020.00 as articles of glass. The Asst. Commissioner noted that the glass rings need further processing before functioning as insulators, as per Heading 85.46, which covers electrical insulators. The glass rings must be identifiable and usable as insulators to qualify under this heading, requiring a firing process with electric wires. Mere characteristic of glass being a bad conductor does not automatically make the rings insulators, as per precedent. The Tribunal's decision in a similar case supports this classification, leading to the glass rings being classified as articles of glass.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appellant's argument based on Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for Tariff interpretation. The rule focuses on the use or application of a material rather than its property. Glass's property as a bad conductor does not inherently classify the rings as insulators. The rings lack a specific design or shape suitable only as insulators, making them usable for other purposes. The argument draws a parallel with copper/aluminium ingots not classified as conductors until processed. The glass rings, in their imported state, do not exhibit insulator characteristics and are rightly classified as articles of glass under Heading 7020.00.3. The glass rings, in their initial form, are not usable as electrical insulators. They require a specific process where they melt and solidify to insulate wires in miniature bulbs. This transformation indicates that the rings are not insulators upon importation. The absence of evidence, such as Manufacturers Literature, supporting the rings' classification as insulators further strengthens the authorities' decision. Merely being a bad conductor does not suffice for classification under Heading 85.46, as it would apply to various glass articles. The rings are deemed raw material for insulators but not insulators themselves, aligning with the principle that goods are assessed in the form presented at importation.4. Considering the above discussions, the appeal lacks merit and is rejected. The glass rings, in their imported state, do not meet the criteria for classification as electrical insulators. The precedent cited regarding Lead Glass Tubings further supports the classification of raw material at the time of importation. The decision upholds the classification of the glass rings as articles of glass under Heading 7020.00, emphasizing the necessity for goods to exhibit insulator properties at importation to qualify under Heading 85.46.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
