Injection moulding machine classification upheld, while anti-dumping duty depends on technical verification of clamping capacity.

An imported machine used for making foamed and non-foamed footwear from thermoplastic materials was treated as an injection moulding machine for plastics and classified under Heading 8477.10, not Heading 8453, because the latter entry applies to machinery for working hides, skins, leather, or making or repairing footwear of hides, skins, or leather. On anti-dumping duty, the machine's clamping capacity was disputed: the appellant relied on a certificate indicating 2.5 to 3 tons, while the department relied on plate-based inference of 40 tons. The levy issue was remanded for technical verification by a competent expert and fresh decision after hearing the appellant.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported machine was classifiable under Heading 8453 or Heading 8477.10 of the Customs Tariff Act, and (ii) whether anti-dumping duty under Notification No. 39/2010 was leviable having regard to the machine's clamping capacity.

Issue (i): Whether the imported machine was classifiable under Heading 8453 or Heading 8477.10 of the Customs Tariff Act

Analysis: The machine was described in the instruction manual as one used for making foamed and non-foamed footwear from thermoplastic materials. Such a machine operates as an injection moulding machine for plastics. Heading 8453 covers machinery for preparing, tanning or working hides, skins or leather or for making or repairing footwear of hides, skins or leather, whereas the imported machine was not shown to be of that nature. Heading 8477.10 specifically covers injection moulding machines, and the machine fell within that description.

Conclusion: The classification under Heading 8453 was rejected and the classification under Heading 8477.10 was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether anti-dumping duty under Notification No. 39/2010 was leviable having regard to the machine's clamping capacity

Analysis: The appellant produced a certificate stating that the clamping capacity was between 2.5 and 3 tons, while the departmental view was based on the machine plate and theoretical deduction of 40 tons. The issue required technical verification rather than determination only on departmental inference. The proper course was to refer the machine to a competent technical expert and then decide whether the clamping force was below 40 tons or within the notified range.

Conclusion: The question of levy of anti-dumping duty was remanded for technical verification and fresh decision after hearing the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The tariff classification was upheld against the appellant, but the applicability of anti-dumping duty was left to be determined after technical verification of the clamping capacity.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the goods are shown by their functional description to be injection moulding machines for plastics, they are classifiable under the specific tariff entry for such machines, and a disputed technical attribute affecting anti-dumping liability should be verified by competent technical examination before levy is confirmed.

---