Customs classification consistency required where prior appellate classification of upgraded beneficiated ilmenite was accepted, sustaining drawback entitlement.

The classification of Upgraded Beneficiated Ilmenite turned on whether it fell under Tariff Item 28230090 or Tariff Item 26140020 for customs purposes, and the related drawback claim depended on that classification. The Tribunal had already classified the product under Tariff Item 28230090, and the customs department later accepted that view in subsequent proceedings. In that setting, the Court applied judicial discipline and held that the contrary revisional order could not stand. The product was therefore treated as classifiable under Tariff Item 28230090, and drawback entitlement followed on that basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the product "Upgraded Beneficiated Ilmenite" was classifiable under Tariff Item 28230090 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or under Tariff Item 26140020, and whether the petitioner was entitled to drawback on that basis.

Analysis: The Court noted that the Tribunal had already examined the product and classified it under Tariff Item 28230090, and that the customs authorities themselves had thereafter accepted that view while dropping subsequent show cause proceedings in obedience to judicial discipline. In that background, the impugned revisional order rejecting the petitioner's classification claim and drawback entitlement could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The product was held to fall under Tariff Item 28230090 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and the petitioner was held entitled to drawback.

Ratio Decidendi: Once the competent appellate forum has classified the goods and the department has accepted that classification in later proceedings, judicial discipline requires consistency, and the contrary revisional view cannot stand.

---