Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether nickel alloy billets imported by the appellant were classifiable under CTH 75051220 as nickel alloys or under CTH 72189910 as stainless steel billets.
Analysis: The tariff scheme under Chapter 75, read with Section XV, classifies an alloy of a base metal by reference to the metal that predominates by weight. The imported goods had nickel content of more than 60% and iron content of about 4.5%, with cobalt far below 1.5%. The conditions in sub-heading note 1(b) of Chapter 75 are alternative, not cumulative, and satisfaction of any one of them is sufficient. Since nickel predominated by weight and the iron content exceeded the limit relevant to sub-heading note 1(b)(ii), the goods answered the description of nickel alloys. The commercial understanding of the product also supported that classification.
Conclusion: The goods were correctly classifiable as nickel alloys under CTH 75051220 and not as stainless steel billets under CTH 72189910.
Final Conclusion: The classification adopted by the Revenue could not be sustained, and the appellant was entitled to the classification claimed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a tariff note sets out alternative qualifying conditions for an alloy, the conditions are not to be read cumulatively unless the language so requires, and classification must follow the metal that predominates by weight.