2010 (4) TMI 653 - AT - Customs

Imported Goods Classification: Practical Functionality & Material Composition Key in Customs Tariff Heading Dispute

SOHAMS FOUNDATION ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. Versus CC., CHENNAI

The goods imported were classified under CTH 3926 90 80 as articles of Polypropylene instead of CTH 5911 90 90. The court applied Rule 3(b) of the General ... Nylon Flodrain FD5 - classification of goods - Rule 3(a) is not applicable as no heading provides for the more specific description of the goods and hence Rule 3(b) attracted - application of Rule 3(b) of the General Interpretative Rules, the item classifiable under Chapter 39 - internal cross-section other than round, oval, rectangular (in which the length does not exceed 1.5 times the width) or in the shape of a regular polygon are not to be regarded as tubes, pipes and hoses but as profile shapes - goods more appropriately classifiable under the residuary heading 39269080 covering articles of Polypropylene which nothing but 'Polyolefin' – order upheld classifying the goods under CTH 39269080 – appeal rejected Issues: Classification of imported goods under the Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 3926 90 80 instead of CTH 5911 90 90.In this case, the appellants imported 'Nylon Flodrain FD5' from Malaysia, which was initially assessed under CTH 3917 32 90 based on a test report from the Textile Committee. The goods were claimed to be articles of 'Polyolefin' and not tubes or hoses. The main issue was the classification of the goods under CTH 5911 90 90 as claimed by the importers or under CTH 3926 90 80 as held by the Commissioner (Appeals).The leaflets provided by the appellants described the goods as a drain body made of high-density polyethylene and polypropylene core wrapped in a non-woven polypropylene filter fabric, highlighting the drainage and filtration functions of the product. The Textile Committee's report confirmed the presence of non-woven textiles and polyolefin in the goods, with plastic material predominating by weight. The function of the goods was primarily to drain through plastic material and filter soil particles, emphasizing the practical use of the product.The appellants claimed classification under CTH 5911 90 90 for textile products for technical uses, but the goods did not fit the specifications under this heading. The HSN Explanatory Notes to Chapter 5911 were examined, and it was concluded that the imported item did not qualify as textiles used for technical purposes. As the goods consisted of both textiles and plastics, the General Rules for Interpretation were applied, specifically Rule 3, to determine the classification based on the material giving the goods their essential character.Applying Rule 3(b) of the General Interpretative Rules, it was found that the plastic material provided the goods their essential character for draining, while the textile material served a secondary function of filtering. Therefore, the goods were classified under CTH 3926 90 80 as articles of Polypropylene, which falls under the residuary heading. The drain body did not have an internal cross-section typical of tubes or hoses, leading to the rejection of classification under CTH 3917. The judgment upheld the classification under CTH 3926 90 80 and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the practical functionality and material composition of the imported goods.Overall, the judgment focused on the functional characteristics and material composition of the imported goods to determine the appropriate classification under the Customs Tariff Heading, highlighting the importance of practical use and essential character in classification decisions.