2024 (5) TMI 21 - AT - Customs

Accordion springs classified under residual CTI 7320 90 90, not leaf springs CTI 7320 10 11, duty demand upheld

M/s Exedy India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Delhi

CESTAT New Delhi dismissed appellant's appeal regarding classification of imported accordion springs. The tribunal held that accordion springs are neither ... Classification - Import of ‘Accordion springs’ - Demand duty - Interest - Penalty - benefit of exemption Notification - Whether the ‘Accordion springs’ imported by the appellant are ‘leaf springs’ classifiable under Customs Tariff Item [CTI] 7320 10 11 as claimed by the appellant or as ‘other springs under CTI 7320 90 90 - HELD THAT:- We find that ‘Accordion Springs’ imported by the appellant are neither helical springs nor leaf springs and are a category of springs in themselves. They are also sold as ‘Accordion springs’ only and not as leaf springs or helical springs. Therefore, they fall under the Customs six digit heading of 7320 90 ‘Other’. Under this, there are three eight digit Customs Tariff Items and since these do not fall under the categories of coil springs for railways (7320 90 10) or spring pins (7320 90 20), they fall under the residual category of CTI 7320 90 90. We, therefore, find in favour of the Revenue and against the appellant on the question of classification. Thus, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned order is upheld. Issues Involved:Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 7320 10 11 as claimed by the appellant or under CTI 7320 90 90 as held in the impugned order.Summary:The appellant, M/s Exedy India Ltd., filed an appeal against the order confirming customs duty demand, interest, and penalty under sections 28(1), 28AA, and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. The issue in question was the classification of 'Accordion springs' imported by the appellant under CTI 7320 10 11 or CTI 7320 90 90. The appellant self-assessed duty under CTI 7320 10 11, claiming exemption under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. However, after audit, the department contended that the correct classification was under CTI 7320 90 90. The appellant defended its classification under CTI 7320 10 11, leading to the issuance of a show cause notice and the impugned order.Submissions and Findings:The appellant argued that the 'Accordion springs' should be classified as leaf springs under CTI 7320 10 11 based on expert opinions and common parlance. However, the Revenue contended that the goods were correctly classified under CTI 7320 90 90 as 'other' springs. The Tribunal analyzed the Customs Tariff headings and the nature of 'Accordion springs,' ultimately determining that they did not fit the definitions of leaf or helical springs. As 'Accordion springs' were not specifically covered in the tariff, they were classified under the residual category of CTI 7320 90 90. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the impugned order, emphasizing that classification must be based on the tariff and not what is beneficial to the assessee.Conclusion:The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue, deciding that the 'Accordion springs' imported by the appellant fell under CTI 7320 90 90 as 'Other' springs, rejecting the appellant's classification under CTI 7320 10 11. The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld.