2013 (11) TMI 753 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Machinery Classification for Plastic Injection Moulding, Directs Verification of Clamping Force

SUPERHOUSE LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CUS. (EXPORT), NHAVA SHEVA

The Tribunal upheld the classification of imported machinery under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 8477.10 for injection moulding of plastic materials, ... Classification of goods - Classifiable under CTH 8753 or CTH 8477 - Injection Moulding Machine for moulding articles of thermoplastic materials such as TPR and not machines for making articles of Hides, Skins or Leather - Anti dumping duty - Notification No. 39/2010 dated 23-3-2010 - Held that:- It is a known fact that hides, skins and other cannot be subjected to injection moulding and, therefore, the claim of the appellant that the machinery is classifiable under CTH 8453 is not sustainable and the same is dismissed. CTH 8477 deals with machinery for working rubber or plastics or for the manufacture of products from these materials and CTH 8477.10 specifically covers Injection Moulding Machines and, therefore, Injection Moulding Machines for working of plastics would come under Heading 8477.10. Therefore, the classification proposed in the impugned order by the customs authorities is correct in law - Following decision of Jama Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva [2012 (8) TMI 630 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] - Decided against assessee. Issues:Classification of imported machinery under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 8477.10 or 8453, Levy of anti-dumping duty, Clamping force verification of the impugned machinery.Classification Issue:The appellant contended that the imported machinery is used for making footwear and should be classified under CTH 8453. However, the Revenue argued that the machinery is an Injection Moulding Machine and should be classified under CTH 8477.10. The Tribunal found that the machinery is for injection moulding of plastic materials, making it fall under Heading 8477.10, as per the operation manual provided by the importer. The claim of the appellant for classification under CTH 8453 was dismissed based on the nature of materials used in the machinery. The Tribunal upheld the classification under Heading 8477.10, citing a previous judgment in a similar case.Levy of Anti-Dumping Duty Issue:The department imposed anti-dumping duty on the imported machinery based on the classification under CTH 8477.10. The appellant argued that the machinery's clamping force ranged between 2.5 to 3 tons, not meeting the criteria of 40 to 1000 tons for anti-dumping duty. The Tribunal directed the customs authorities to verify the clamping force through a technical expert within 15 days. If the force is found to be less than 40 tons, the appellant should be exempted from anti-dumping duty, emphasizing the importance of hearing the appellant before any decision.Clamping Force Verification Issue:The dispute over the clamping force of the impugned machinery was crucial in determining the levy of anti-dumping duty. The appellant claimed a clamping force of 2.5 to 3 tons, while the adjudicating authority deduced it as 40 tons based on theoretical calculations. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a competent authority to verify the clamping force and directed the customs authorities to conduct the verification. If the force is confirmed to be less than 40 tons, the appellant should benefit from the exemption of anti-dumping duty, with a requirement to involve the appellant in the decision-making process.