Classification of imported tiles as vitrified or porcelain tiles upheld, with anti-dumping duty, confiscation and penalty sustained.

Imported goods with a thin artificial marble surface were classified by their essential character as vitrified or porcelain tiles, not marble tiles; the origin certificate also described them as porcelain tiles, so the importer's description was ? Need English. Therefore, the classification challenge failed and the goods attracted anti-dumping duty under the relevant notification. The misdeclaration finding further supported confiscation and the consequential penalty, which were sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported goods were classifiable as marble tiles or as vitrified/porcelain tiles, and whether anti-dumping duty, confiscation and penalty were sustainable.

Analysis: The goods had a thin surface layer described as artificial marble, but the bottom layer gave the item its essential character as vitrified tiles. The certificate from the country of origin described the product as porcelain tiles, and the description declared by the importer was therefore incorrect. Since the goods fell within the category attracting anti-dumping duty under the relevant notification, the challenge to classification failed. The finding of misdeclaration also supported confiscation and the consequential penalty.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly treated as porcelain or vitrified tiles attracting anti-dumping duty, and the confiscation and penalty were sustained against the assessee.

---