TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellant wins classification dispute for surgical instruments</h1> <h3>Shivani Scientific Industries (P) Ltd Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import) ACC, Mumbai</h3> Shivani Scientific Industries (P) Ltd Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import) ACC, Mumbai - 2019 (365) E.L.T. 824 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:Classification of imported goods under heading no. 90118000 vs. 90189099 of the First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975.Analysis:1. The dispute revolves around the classification of imported goods by the appellant under heading no. 90189099, while customs authorities argue for classification under heading no. 90118000. The appellant claims the goods fall under the former, relating to medical instruments, whereas the authorities assert they are compound optical microscopes.2. The Revenue's argument, based on a Supreme Court decision, is challenged as irrelevant due to the distinct nature of the present dispute concerning tariff classification rules. The dispute primarily centers on the applicability of a partial exemption for goods under the appellant's claimed heading, necessitating a resolution based on the heading alone within the context of statutory rules.3. The challenge lies in determining the classification under the residual entry in the two headings, complicating the resolution. The judgment emphasizes the importance of statutory classification once items are placed under a distinct entry, cautioning against ambiguity in classification and advocating for a clear determination to avoid controversy over residual clauses.4. The crux of the issue is whether the imported goods qualify as compound optical microscopes under chapter 90 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The lower authorities upheld the classification as microscopes, but the appellant argues for a broader interpretation due to the goods' functionality in infertility treatment.5. The appellant's goods consist of a microscope and a micromanipulator crucial for in vitro fertilization. The authorities contend that the micromanipulator is an accessory to the microscope, leading to the classification as microscopes. However, the judgment rejects this view, emphasizing the essential role of both components in the process.6. The application of rule 1 and rule 2 of General Interpretative Rules leads to setting aside the lower authorities' classification and allowing the appeals. The declared classification is upheld, considering the goods as instruments for surgical therapy rather than diagnostic instruments, as presumed by the customs authorities.In conclusion, the judgment favors the appellant's classification under heading no. 90189099, emphasizing the critical role of both the microscope and micromanipulator in surgical therapy, leading to the allowance of the appeals.
TaxTMI 