1983 (7) TMI 309 - AT - Customs

Tribunal reclassifies Separator for glazed tile production, grants refund under specific tariff heading

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing a refund for the Appellants based on the reclassification of the Solid/Liquid Separator under Heading 84.59(2) ... - Issues: Classification of imported Solid/Liquid Separator under Customs Tariff Act; Applicability of Heading 84.56 or 84.59; Interpretation of machine's design and purpose for classification.In the present case, the Appellants imported a Solid/Liquid Separator and sought re-assessment under Heading 84.56 for use in manufacturing glazed tiles. The Appellate Collector classified the machine under Heading 84.59(1) as a general-purpose Screening Machine, primarily designed for separating wet and dry materials across various industries. The Appellants argued that the machine, described as a Rotex Automatic Tensioning Model Screener, was specifically designed for screening ceramic materials for glazed tile production, falling under Heading 84.56. They contended that the machine's design and intended use for specific mineral substances warranted classification under Heading 84.56. The Appellants emphasized that different models of screeners with unique specifications indicated specific applications, challenging the notion of the machine being general-purpose. They referenced the Explanatory Notes to the CCCN under Heading 84.56 to support their argument that certain machines could have secondary uses beyond mineral products. The Appellants also highlighted the importance of the machine in the production process of glazed tiles, asserting its essential role as a production type screener. They further alleged bias by the lower authorities in favor of Heading 84.59(1) and requested reclassification under Heading 84.56 or alternatively 84.59(2) for a refund.During the proceedings, the Appellants' representative, Shri D.N. Kohli, presented evidence, including a manufacturer's certificate and affidavit, emphasizing the machine's specific design for screening mineral substances in the production of glazed tiles. The Senior Departmental Representative (SDR) contested this evidence, questioning its validity and relevance. The SDR argued that Heading 84.56 pertained to machinery mainly used in extractive industries, not manufacturing processes like glazed tiles. Additionally, the SDR raised concerns about the machine's horsepower capacity and its suitability for handling earth, stones, and minerals as specified under Heading 84.56.After careful consideration, the Tribunal analyzed the machine's specifications, design, and intended use. While acknowledging the machine's function in screening mineral substances for ceramic materials, the Tribunal noted discrepancies between the machine's description as a Liquid-Solid separator for slurry and the solid-focused description under Heading 84.56. The Tribunal also deliberated on the machine's individual function for producing glazed tiles, aligning with Heading 84.59(2) for machines with specific production purposes. Despite the BTN referencing extractive industries for Heading 84.56, the Tribunal found no such limitation in the Customs Tariff Act, favoring a more specific classification under Heading 84.59(2) for the Appellants' machine. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing a refund for the Appellants based on the reclassification under Heading 84.59(2).