Industrial use controls tariff classification of antimony oxide; possible pigment use cannot justify a revenue-driven classification

Imported technical grade antimony oxide was classified under Item 28 of the Indian Customs Tariff, 1934, because its character and intended industrial use for glass bulbs and tubes showed it was not pigment grade. A possible alternative use as a colouring or pigment material did not justify a revenue-favourable classification under Item 30. On that basis, the countervailing duty proposed under Item 14(I)(5) of the Central Excise Tariff was not exigible, and relief followed for the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported antimony oxide was classifiable under Item 28 of the Indian Customs Tariff, 1934, or under Item 30, and whether countervailing duty under Item 14(I)(5) of the Central Excise Tariff was exigible.

Analysis: The imported goods were technical grade antimony oxide meant for the manufacture of glass bulbs and tubes. Their mere capability of being used as a colouring or pigment material did not justify classification on a revenue-favourable basis. The relevant consideration was the character and intended use of the goods, and the materials placed before the Tribunal supported the appellants' case that the goods were not pigment grade.

Conclusion: The goods were held classifiable under Item 28, not Item 30, and the countervailing duty demand was not sustainable. The appeal was therefore allowed with consequential relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported goods are meant for a specific industrial use, a possible alternative use does not permit a classification driven by revenue considerations.

---