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>Supreme Court: Machinery for Footwear Not Exempt from Customs Duty under Heading 8453</h1> <h3>JAMA CORPORATION PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS)</h3> JAMA CORPORATION PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS) - 2020 (372) E.L.T. 193 (SC) Issues: Classification of machinery for customs duty exemptionIn this judgment by the Supreme Court of India, the issues revolve around the classification of machinery for customs duty exemption. The key points of contention include whether certain machines used in the leather footwear industry should be classified under Heading 8453 of the Customs Tariff, and whether they qualify for exemption from anti-dumping duty as per a specific notification. The Court analyzed the facts and arguments presented by the parties to reach a decision.Analysis:The Court upheld the findings of the authorities that the machines in question, declared for use in leather footwear industries for injection moulding of PVC/TPR/EVA soles, did not fall under Heading 8453 of the Customs Tariff. The machines were specifically identified as not covered under the category of machinery for preparing, tanning, or working hides, skins, or leather, or for making or repairing footwear. This finding was crucial in determining the classification for customs duty purposes.Regarding the contention that a notification exempting machinery used for making footwear should apply, the Court ruled that the machines must fall under classification No. 8453 to qualify for the exemption. Since the machines in question were not exclusively used for the specified purpose under that category, the appellant's argument based on the notification was deemed invalid.The Court rejected the appellant's argument that the entry 8453 independently refers to machinery for making or repairing footwear. It emphasized that this expression must be understood in the context of the broader heading dealing with machinery for preparing, tanning, or working hides, skins, or leather. This interpretation was crucial in determining the scope of classification for the machinery in question.Furthermore, the Court dismissed the appellant's reliance on a previous case where an importer received benefits based on clamping force being less than 40 tons. The Court noted that this contention was not specifically raised by the appellant before the relevant authorities, highlighting that it was a question of fact that was not adequately addressed during the proceedings.Ultimately, the Court concluded that the appeal failed on the grounds discussed, leading to its dismissal. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the classification of machinery for customs duty purposes, emphasizing the importance of interpreting relevant headings and categories in the Customs Tariff to determine the applicability of exemptions and duties.
TaxTMI 