Tariff classification of bra cups followed the specific heading and essential character, with duty recomputed on the pair as one unit.

Clearance of imported goods did not prevent the customs authorities from issuing notice for reclassification and demand of differential duty, provided the statutory time limits and hearing requirements were satisfied. Bra cups were held classifiable under CTH 6212, because the specific tariff heading and the goods' essential character as parts of a brassiere prevailed over reliance on their material composition under Chapter 39. The exemption under Notification No. 26/2000-Cus. was not established on the record. Duty was to be recomputed on the imported pair as a single unit, rather than by splitting the articles into separate pieces.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Revenue could issue a notice for reclassification and demand differential duty after the goods had been cleared; (ii) whether bra cups were classifiable under CTH 3926 or CTH 6212; (iii) whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 26/2000-Cus. dated 01.03.2000; and (iv) whether duty was to be computed on each piece or on the pair as a single unit.

Issue (i): whether the Revenue could issue a notice for reclassification and demand differential duty after the goods had been cleared

Analysis: Clearance of the goods did not bar recourse to the statutory mechanism for recovery of duty not levied or short-levied. The limitation and procedural safeguards under the Customs Act govern reopening, and the authorities may examine the correctness of the earlier assessment so long as notice is issued within the prescribed time and the importer is afforded an opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The Revenue could issue notice for reclassification and demand differential duty after clearance, subject to the statutory requirements.

Issue (ii): whether bra cups were classifiable under CTH 3926 or CTH 6212

Analysis: Classification had to be determined by the terms of the headings, the section and chapter notes, and the General Rules for Interpretation. The goods answered the description of parts of brassie res under heading 6212, and the specific description in that heading prevailed over reliance on the material composition of the article. The essential character of the goods was that of a part of a brassie re, and the exclusionary argument based on Chapter 39 could not override the more specific tariff entry.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly classifiable under CTH 6212 and not under CTH 3926.

Issue (iii): whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 26/2000-Cus. dated 01.03.2000

Analysis: The exemption benefit was not established as having been claimed and satisfied at the time of importation, and the conditions for extending the notification benefit were not shown to be fulfilled on the record.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the notification.

Issue (iv): whether duty was to be computed on each piece or on the pair as a single unit

Analysis: The imported goods were brought in pairs and were intended to function as a unit for one brassie re. For tariff valuation purposes, articles imported in sets or pairs are to be treated according to their unit character, and the duty could not be mechanically split into two separate pieces for valuation.

Conclusion: Duty was to be recalculated on the pair as a single unit.

Final Conclusion: The classification under CTH 6212 was sustained, the exemption claim failed, and the matter was sent back only for recomputation of duty on the basis of the pair as one unit.

Ratio Decidendi: For tariff classification, the specific heading and the essential character of the goods govern over the material composition, and goods imported as a functional pair may be valued as a single unit for duty purposes.

---