Brake pad materials with steel backing classified under CTH 6813 as friction materials not CTH 3824

CESTAT Chennai classified imported brake pad materials under CTH 6813 as friction materials rather than CTH 3824 as claimed by importer. The tribunal held that friction materials bonded with steel backing plates constitute integrated components for automotive brakes, properly falling under Chapter 6813. Consequently, importer was denied exemption benefits under notifications 152/2009 and 50/2017. However, extended period limitation was rejected due to absence of willful suppression findings, with only normal period duty demand upheld. Revenue's appeal was partly allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported "Materials (Binding material for manufacture of Automobile Brakes)" under CTH 38249090 / 38247900 or CTH 68138900.
2. Invocation of the extended period for the demand of duty under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Classification of Imported Materials

The core issue revolves around the classification of the imported materials used for manufacturing brake pads. The Respondent had classified the materials under CTH 38249090 / 38247900, while the Department argued they should be classified under CTH 68138900 as friction materials.

Respondent's Argument:
The Respondent contended that the imported goods, in powder form, do not qualify as friction materials under CTH 6813. They emphasized that HSN explanatory notes to heading 6813 specify that friction materials should be in specific shapes like sheets, rolls, strips, disks, rings, washers, pads, etc. Since the imported goods are in powder form and not in any specific shape, they argued that these should not be classified under CTH 6813.

Department's Argument:
The Department argued that the imported item is a friction material in powder form, formed by a high level of processing and ready to be bonded directly to manufacture brake pads. They stressed that the imported item qualifies as a friction material and should be classified under CTH 6813, as the exclusions specified in the explanatory notes to Chapter 68 are not applicable.

Tribunal's Findings:
The Tribunal examined the relevant provisions of the Customs Tariff Act, including Section Notes, Chapter Notes, and HSN Explanatory Notes. They concluded that there is no exclusion of the imported materials' classification under Chapter Heading 3824 or 6813. They referred to the General Rules for Interpretation (GRI) of Import Tariff, particularly Rule 3, which stipulates that the heading providing the most specific description should be preferred.

The Tribunal noted that the imported materials, being a mixture of various organic and inorganic materials, are used in the manufacture of brake pads and have the essential character of friction materials. They concluded that the materials are more appropriately classifiable under CTH 6813 as friction materials.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal rejected the Respondent's classification under CTH 3824 and upheld the Department's classification under CTH 6813. Consequently, the Respondent is not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 50/2017-Cus. dated 30.06.2017 and Notification No. 152/2009-Cus. dated 31.12.2009.

Issue 2: Invocation of Extended Period

The second issue concerns whether the extended period for the demand of duty under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, is invokable.

Respondent's Argument:
The Respondent argued that the issue is regarding classification, which is a question of interpretation. They contended that there was no mis-declaration of goods, and hence, invoking the extended period by alleging misclassification and suppression is not legally tenable.

Department's Argument:
The Department issued a Show Cause Notice on 30.11.2018, invoking the extended period under Section 28(4) for imports from July 2013 to July 2017. They alleged that the Respondent had mis-declared the goods to avail of the benefits of the said Notifications.

Tribunal's Findings:
The Tribunal referred to various judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decisions, which held that merely claiming a benefit of exemption or a particular classification does not amount to mis-declaration. They noted that the Respondent had consistently adopted the classification and there was no positive suppression of facts.

The Tribunal concluded that attributing any malafide intention or motive for adopting such classification is not justified. They held that the invocation of the extended period for the demand of duty is not legal or justified.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal decided in favor of the Respondent on the issue of the extended period, holding that the demand for the extended period is not justified. The demand for the normal period along with interest is upheld.

Summary:
The Tribunal upheld the Department's classification of the imported goods under CTH 6813 and rejected the Respondent's classification under CTH 3824. Consequently, the Respondent is not eligible for the benefits of the cited Notifications. However, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Respondent on the issue of the extended period, holding that the invocation of the extended period for the demand of duty is not justified. The Department's appeal is partly allowed, with the demand for the normal period upheld and the demand for the extended period set aside.

---