2005 (7) TMI 122 - AT - Customs

Tribunal classifies markers under 3215.90, rejects 'writing ink' argument. Importance of HSN notes stressed.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue, classifying 'Permanent Marker Ink' and 'Dry Wiper Marker Ink' under sub-heading 3215.90 as 'other inks' ... Ink - Marker ink - Classification of goods Issues:Central Excise classification of 'Permanent Marker Ink' and 'Dry Wiper Marker Ink' under sub-heading 3215.10 or 3215.90, and the applicability of HSN notes in classification.Analysis:Issue 1: Central Excise ClassificationThe dispute revolves around the classification of two inks, 'Permanent Marker Ink' and 'Dry Wiper Marker Ink,' used in marker pens. The appellants argue for classification under sub-heading 3215.10 as 'writing ink' attracting a NIL rate, while revenue authorities advocate for classification under 3215.90 as 'other' inks attracting a 16% duty. The controversy arises concerning imported goods subject to additional customs duty equivalent to Central Excise duty on Indian manufactured goods.Issue 2: Interpretation of Tariff HeadingsThe Customs Tariff and Central Excise Tariff headings for inks are compared, highlighting the distinction between 'writing ink' and 'other inks.' The contention is whether specific sub-headings should prevail over the general 'other' category. The Revenue argues against expanding the scope of 'writing ink' and emphasizes the HSN notes delineating different categories of inks, including 'marking inks' falling under 'other' inks.Issue 3: Applicability of HSN NotesThe debate centers on the relevance of HSN notes in classification when Central Excise Tariff does not align with HSN classification at the sub-heading level. The Tribunal's past reliance on HSN notes in similar cases is cited. The interpretation of Rule 5 of Interpretative Rules is scrutinized, with the Revenue asserting that HSN notes can aid in resolving classification doubts, especially when entries overlap, as in the case of 'writing ink' and 'other inks.'Conclusion:The Tribunal rules in favor of the Revenue, emphasizing the need to prevent encroachment on the scope of specific entries by expanding their classification. The judgment underscores the importance of HSN notes in clarifying classification doubts and upholds the classification of 'Permanent Marker Ink' and 'Dry Wiper Marker Ink' under sub-heading 3215.90 as 'other inks.' The decision directs the appeals to the Division Bench for further action.