2024 (7) TMI 766 - AT - Customs

Injection Stretch Blow Moulding Machine classified under tariff heading 84773000 not 84771000 anti-dumping duty inapplicable

CESTAT Ahmedabad held that Injection Stretch Blow Moulding Machine (ISBMM) imported from China should be classified under tariff heading 84773000, not ... Levy of Anti-Dumping Duty under Notification No. 57/2015-Cus (ADD) dated 04.12.2015 - import of Injection Stretch Blow Moulding Machine (ISBMM) from China - to be classified under tariff entry 84771000 which covers “Injection Moulding Machines” or not - HELD THAT:- The Chartered Engineer in his certificate dated 20.07.2020 certified that from technical perspective, this Injection Stretch Blow Moulding Machine (84773000) is different than the Injection Moulding Machine (84771000). The said Injection Stretch Blow Moulding will be used for the development of IV Fluid containers which is being used in Pharmaceutical Industry - The process of injection molding and inject stretch blow moulding are totally different. The said machine, the firm has imported is having a technical feature of simultaneous stretching and blow moulding, which is absent in Injection moulding machine. In Injection moulding machine, the moulds can be fastened either vertical or horizontal to develop the moulds. Due to this feature, the machine is able to produce the IV fluid bottle with ‘hanger’ attached to it. In the instant case ISBMM being a composite machine comprising of IMM and BMM producing in end a Blow Moulded empty hollow 100ml or 500ml capacity bottle to hold pharmacopeia IV Fluid for infusion to patients in hospitals and the clearly defined function of the combination machine is Blow Moulding which is to be considered as the sole function - the classification of imported goods i.e. Injection Stretch Blow Moulding machine (ISBMM) is held to be under tariff heading 84773000. The impugned order is set aside - Appeal allowed. Issues:Classification of Injection Stretch Blow Moulding Machine under tariff headings 84771000 and 84773000.Analysis:The Appellant imported an Injection Stretch Blow Moulding Machine (ISBMM) and claimed classification under tariff entry 84773000, while the Revenue contended that it should be classified under 84771000 for Injection Moulding Machines, attracting Anti-Dumping Duty. The Appellant argued that the machine is a composite of Injection Moulding Machine (IMM) and Blow Moulding Machine (BMM), each with distinct functions falling under different sub-headings. The Appellant emphasized that the ISBMM's principal function is Blow Moulding, not Injection Moulding, supported by technical evidence from a Chartered Engineer. The Tribunal noted that the ISBMM's operation differs from an IMM, as it involves simultaneous stretching and blow moulding, absent in Injection Moulding. The Tribunal referred to Section XVI Notes and Chapter 84 Note 7, emphasizing that a composite machine should be classified based on the machine performing the principal function, which in this case is Blow Moulding for the ISBMM. Thus, the Tribunal held the correct classification of the ISBMM under tariff heading 84773000.The Appellant further argued against the application of Anti-Dumping Duty, highlighting that the machine's clamping force specification was not a tariff entry but a specification for duty applicability. The Appellant stressed that the machine's function of producing IV fluid bottles through a combination of injection and blow moulding aligns with tariff entry 84773000, which is excluded from the Anti-Dumping Duty Notification applicable to specific Injection Moulding Machines. The Tribunal agreed with the Appellant's arguments, ruling in favor of classifying the ISBMM under 84773000 and setting aside the impugned order. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any as per law.In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis considered the technical aspects, statutory provisions, and classification principles to determine the correct classification of the Injection Stretch Blow Moulding Machine under tariff headings, ultimately ruling in favor of the Appellant and providing a comprehensive explanation for the decision.