Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 waste of rubberised bead wire and bead wire rings removed from defective tyres were classifiable under Tariff Item No. 4004 or Tariff Item No. 7204.90.
Analysis: The products were found to originate as stainless steel wire. The mere coating of the wire with rubber did not alter its essential character as metal. The waste generated in the process of rubberising the wire was held to be predominantly metal waste arising from the mechanical working of metal, and thus fell within Note 6 to Section XV. Chapter Note 6 to Chapter 40 was held inapplicable because it applies only to rubber waste, parings and scrap from the manufacture or working of rubber and rubber goods. The material removed from defective tyres was also held to retain its earlier character as metal waste and scrap, as its composition remained unchanged.
Conclusion: The correct classification was under Tariff Item No. 7204.90 and not under Tariff Item No. 4004. The Tribunal's view was set aside and the classification adopted by the Collector (Appeals) was restored.
Ratio Decidendi: Waste or scrap retains the tariff identity of the material of which it is essentially composed, and a superficial coating or removal from another product does not change its classification where its essential character remains that of metal.