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>Tribunal rules for Hamilton in customs classification dispute, remands case for proper valuation</h1> <h3>HAMILTON HOUSEWARES PVT. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CUS., AHMEDABAD</h3> HAMILTON HOUSEWARES PVT. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CUS., AHMEDABAD - 2014 (314) E.L.T. 394 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues Involved:1. Classification of imported goods.2. Alleged misdeclaration of description.3. Rejection of transaction value and determination of value.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Classification of Imported Goods:The primary dispute revolved around the classification of the imported goods under the Customs Tariff. The appellant, Hamilton, classified the goods under Heading 7013 39 00, while the department proposed classification under Heading 7013 32 00. The classification under 7013 32 00 required the goods to have a linear coefficient of expansion not exceeding 5 x 10-6 per Kelvin. The Chemical Examiner's report stated that the goods were borosilicate glassware with no breakage on heating and cooling, indicating lower linear expansion, but did not quantify the coefficient of expansion. Contrarily, the supplier and CGCRI, Kolkata, certified the coefficient as 5.9 x 10-6 and 6.99 x 10-6 per Kelvin, respectively. The Tribunal found the department's evidence insufficient to prove the classification under 7013 32 00 and held that the goods should be classified under 7013 39 00 as claimed by Hamilton.2. Alleged Misdeclaration of Description:The department accused Hamilton of misdeclaring Opal Ware as Glassware to undervalue the goods. However, examination reports at ICD, Vapi, indicated that the goods were indeed Opal Glassware Dinner Sets, supporting Hamilton's claim that there was no misdeclaration. The Tribunal referred to ASTM standards, which define Opal Glass and Borosilicate Glass, and concluded that Opal Glassware could be considered Glassware. Therefore, the Tribunal did not find sufficient grounds to sustain the allegation of misdeclaration.3. Rejection of Transaction Value and Determination of Value:The transaction value was rejected based on higher prices found in invoices recovered from another importer and an email. The Commissioner noted the absence of a fresh MoU after 2006 and discrepancies in the price lists. However, Hamilton argued that no evidence of additional payments was found, and they had long-term contracts with the supplier. The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner did not follow the proper procedure under the Customs Valuation Rules after rejecting the transaction value. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner should have considered the transaction value of similar goods imported by others and provided a detailed explanation for rejecting Hamilton's transaction value. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need to follow principles of natural justice and proper valuation procedures.Conclusion:The Tribunal found that the department failed to prove the correct classification under Heading 7013 32 00 and that there was no misdeclaration of description by Hamilton. The rejection of the transaction value was not in accordance with the law, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
