Appellate Authority Upholds Classification of Fusible Interlining Cloth under Customs Tariff Act

The Appellate Authority upheld the West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling's decision that fusible interlining cloth is classified under sub-heading 5903 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The ruling emphasized the significance of CBEC Circulars and the manufacturing process of the product, dismissing the appellant's arguments based on test reports and previous judicial decisions.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Classification of fusible interlining cloth under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
2. Applicability of CBEC Circulars and Chapter Notes to the classification.
3. Consideration of test reports and prior judicial decisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Fusible Interlining Cloth:

The appellant, M/s. Sadguru Seva Paridhan Pvt. Ltd. (SSPPL), sought a ruling on whether fusible interlining cloth should be classified under Chapters 50 to 55 or Heading 5903 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (WBAAR) classified the item under sub-heading 5903, referencing various CBEC Circulars and the production process.

2. Applicability of CBEC Circulars and Chapter Notes:

The WBAAR referenced multiple CBEC Circulars:
- Circular No. 24/Coated Fabric/88-CX.1 dated 02/09/1988 explained the dot printing process and concluded that fusible interlining cloth merits classification under Heading 5903 if it covers one side of the fabric with a continuous and adherent film of plastic.
- Circular No. 5/89 dated 15/06/1989 stated that fusible interlining cloth made by discrete coating with plastic by dot printing process became classifiable under Heading 5903 after the insertion of Note 2(c) in Chapter 59.
- Circular No. 433/66/98-CX-6 dated 27/11/1998 maintained that fusible interlining cloth partially coated with plastic should continue to be classified under Heading 5903 even after the deletion of Chapter Note 2(c) in 1995.

The appellant argued that the WBAAR misread Circular No. 24/Coated Fabric/88-CX.1 and ignored the test report showing the goods were partially coated with polythene, falling outside Chapter 59. They also cited the case of Goodswear Fashion Pvt. Ltd. and Madura Coats vs. CBEC, which quashed Circular No. 433/66/98-CX.

3. Consideration of Test Reports and Prior Judicial Decisions:

The appellant claimed the product should be classified under sub-heading 5208, 5209, or 5212, based on the test report and invoices. However, the WBAAR found that the fusible interlining cloth, being a textile coated with plastic on one side, does not involve a weaving process and thus cannot be classified under these sub-headings, which are for woven fabrics of cotton.

The Revenue pointed out that the test report did not describe the sample as a 'fusible article,' and the judgment in Madura Coats vs. CBEC was not applicable. The WBAAR concluded that the product qualifies for classification under sub-heading 5903, as it is a textile fabric impregnated, coated, covered, or laminated with plastics, and the pattern of dots resulted from the dot printing process, not partial coating.

Conclusion:

The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal, upholding the WBAAR's ruling that fusible interlining cloth is classifiable under sub-heading 5903 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The decision emphasized the applicability of CBEC Circulars and the nature of the product's manufacturing process, rejecting the appellant's reliance on test reports and prior judicial decisions that did not consider the relevant circulars.

---