Settled tariff classification of identical imported goods defeated the revised heading and linked duty demand.

Imported goods were held to remain classifiable under heading 84717020 rather than 84717030 because earlier co-ordinate Tribunal rulings on identical goods had already settled the classification, and no distinguishing basis was shown. On that settled footing, the revised classification adopted in the impugned order could not stand, and the related denial of exemption and differential duty demand also failed. The impugned order was therefore set aside in favour of the importer.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported goods were classifiable under heading 84717020 or heading 84717030 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and whether the denial of exemption and consequent demand could stand.

Analysis: The classification issue had already been decided in earlier Tribunal rulings dealing with identical goods, and those rulings had been followed consistently. The Tribunal found no basis to depart from the settled classification. On that footing, the revised classification adopted in the impugned order could not be sustained, and the denial of exemption flowing from that classification also fell.

Conclusion: The disputed goods were not liable to be classified under heading 84717030 as adopted in the impugned order, and the order confirming differential duty was unsustainable; the issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned order was set aside on the settled classification of the imported goods.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the classification of imported goods is already settled by earlier co-ordinate decisions on identical facts, a contrary classification in the impugned order cannot be sustained absent a basis to distinguish those decisions.

---