1988 (8) TMI 243 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate Tribunal rules on Tariff classification: Gutta Percha assessed under , not (1)

The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that Gutta Percha should be assessed under Tariff Item 68 CET and not under Tariff Heading ... Plastics - Countervailing duty Issues:1. Assessment of duty under Tariff Item 68 CET vs. Tariff Heading 40.01/04 and Central Excise Tariff Item 15A(1).2. Interpretation of Tariff Heading 15A(1) of Central Excise Tariff.3. Classification of natural high polymers under Tariff Heading 15A(1).Analysis:1. The appeal was filed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay regarding the assessment of duty on a consignment of Gutta Percha Raw 08. The dispute was whether the goods should be assessed under Tariff Item 68 CET or Tariff Heading 40.01/04 and Central Excise Tariff Item 15A(1) for the purpose of levy of C.V. Duty. The Collector (Appeals) allowed the refund claim, but the Appellate Tribunal overturned this decision. The Tribunal held that since the imported product did not conform to the specifications of products enumerated under Item 16A or 16AA of the CET, it was correctly liable to CVD under Item 68 of the CET.2. The Revenue appealed against the order of the Collector (Appeals), arguing that Gutta Percha should be assessed under Tariff Heading 15A(1) CET as a high polymer. The learned SDR cited a previous case to support this argument, emphasizing that high polymers are covered under Tariff Heading 15A(1) CET. The Tribunal analyzed the descriptions in the Tariff Schedule and concluded that the imported product was correctly assessed under Tariff Item 68 CET, not under Tariff Heading 15A(1) CET.3. The respondents contended that Gutta Percha, being a natural product, should not be classified under Tariff Heading 15A(1) CET, which covers artificial or synthetic resins and plastic materials. They argued that the term 'high polymer' in the Tariff description should be interpreted to exclude natural high polymers like Gutta Percha. The Tribunal examined the wording of Tariff Heading 15A(1) and the placement of the term 'other high polymers' within the description. They held that the term 'high polymer' was not qualified as artificial or synthetic, indicating that it covers all varieties of high polymers, whether natural or artificial. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the Collector (Appeals) order and allowed the appeal of the Revenue.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that Gutta Percha should be assessed under Tariff Item 68 CET and not under Tariff Heading 15A(1) CET. The judgment emphasized the interpretation of the Tariff descriptions and the classification of natural high polymers under the relevant Tariff headings.