1983 (4) TMI 270 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Countervailing Duty on Aluminum Alloy Products

The Tribunal upheld the countervailing duty imposed by the Collector on aluminum alloy products predominantly made of aluminum, rejecting the appellants' ... Countervailing duty - construction of tariff entries - classification of aluminium alloys as aluminium manufactures - trade-name analogy for alloysCountervailing duty - classification of aluminium alloys as aluminium manufactures - construction of tariff entries - trade-name analogy for alloys - Imported goods composed predominantly of aluminium attract countervailing duty under Item 27 of the CET; analogy to copper-alloy trade names is not decisive. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal examined the invoice description and found the imported items to be predominantly aluminium (93% aluminium). Applying the construction of the tariff entry, the Tribunal held that goods predominantly of aluminium fall within the ambit of Item 27 and thus attract countervailing duty. The respondents' reliance on analogy with copper alloys (which have distinct trade names such as brass or bronze) was rejected as misplaced because those alloys are known in trade by definite names; that distinction does not exclude aluminium-dominant alloys from being treated as aluminium manufactures for the purpose of Item 27. On that basis the Appellate Collector's order confirming levy under Item 27 was upheld. [Paras 5]Appeal rejected and order of the Appellate Collector sustaining countervailing duty under Item 27 upheld.Final Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the revision, holding that goods predominantly composed of aluminium are liable to countervailing duty under Item 27 of the CET and that the copper-alloy trade-name analogy does not preclude such classification. The case involved a revision application against an order passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras. The appellants claimed that the goods imported did not attract countervailing duty under Item 27 of CET as they were aluminum alloy products. However, the Tribunal found that the goods were predominantly made of aluminum (93% aluminum) and upheld the duty imposed by the Collector. The appeal was rejected.