TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Imported PVC Resin SP 660 Suspension Grade Classified Under CTH 3904 2110, Benefit Denial Set Aside Under N/N. 46/2011-Cus</h1> The CESTAT Chennai held that the imported PVC Resin SP 660 Suspension Grade is correctly classifiable under CTH 3904 2110, not under CTH 3904 1090. The ... Classification of imported goods - PVC Resin SP 660 Suspension Grade - to be classified under CTH 3904 2110 or under CTH 3904 1090? - denial of benefit of N/N. 46/2011-Cus dated 1.6.2011 - HELD THAT:- This issue was previously addressed by this Bench in Ramnath & Co. [2025 (7) TMI 1345 - CESTAT CHENNAI], the company whose test report was also made applicable to the present case. The CIPET clarification dated 25.02.2015, relied on in Ramnath & Co., is the same one relied upon here - it was held in the said case that 'the imported goods are correctly classifiable under sub-heading 3904.21 (Tariff Item 3902 21 10) by application Rule 3(a) of General Rules for the Interpretation of Import Tariff Schedule.' The facts and law involved in the above case are similar to the issue here - the impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed. ISSUES: Whether the imported goods described as 'PVC Resin SP 660 Suspension Grade' are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 3904 2110 or under CTH 3904 1090.Whether the benefit under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 1.6.2011 is applicable to the imported goods.Whether classification should be determined primarily based on test reports describing the goods as compound or prime material.Application and interpretation of General Rules for the Interpretation (GRI) of the Customs Tariff Schedule, specifically Rule 1 and Rule 3(a), in classifying the goods.Whether a specific tariff heading should be preferred over a residual or general heading in classification disputes.Whether the presence or absence of additives such as plasticizers affects the classification of PVC resin under the relevant tariff headings.Whether prior decisions and test reports on similar goods are binding or persuasive in the present classification dispute.Whether delay and procedural lapses in reassessment affect the validity of classification and demand of duty. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The imported goods 'PVC Resin SP 660 Suspension Grade' are correctly classifiable under CTH 3904 2110, which is a specific heading for Poly (vinyl chloride) resins, rather than under CTH 3904 1090, a residual heading for other Poly (vinyl chloride) not mixed with any other substances.The benefit under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 1.6.2011 applies to the goods when classified under CTH 3904 2110.Test reports from CIPET stating that the goods 'may be considered as polyvinyl chloride (PVC) resin, which is a single thermoplastic material in powder form' and 'may not be considered as compound since it is not mixed with any other substances' support classification under CTH 3904 2110.Rule 3(a) of the General Rules for the Interpretation of Import Tariff mandates that 'the heading which provides the more specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description,' thereby ruling out the residual entry CTH 3904 1090 in favor of the specific entry CTH 3904 2110.The presence or absence of additives such as plasticizers is material; goods without plasticizers fall under CTH 3904 2110 (non-plasticized PVC resins), whereas plasticized PVC resins fall under a different heading (CTH 3904 2210).Prior decisions and test reports on identical or similar goods, including those by coordinate benches and the same tribunal, are persuasive and support classification under CTH 3904 2110.Procedural irregularities such as delay in reassessment and failure to issue a speaking order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, were noted but did not override the substantive classification ruling. RATIONALE: The Court applied the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and the General Rules for the Interpretation of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, particularly Rules 1 and 3(a), which require classification according to the terms of headings and preference for the most specific description.The Court relied heavily on expert technical evidence from CIPET, which clarified that the goods are prime PVC resin not mixed with additives or plasticizers, thus not constituting a compound.The Court noted that the tariff schedule contains specific eight-digit subheadings distinguishing non-plasticized and plasticized PVC resins, supporting classification under the more specific heading 3904 2110.The Court emphasized settled legal principles from Supreme Court precedents that a specific tariff entry prevails over a general or residual one, and that classification should not be disturbed without sufficient justification.The Court rejected semantic distinctions made by the Commissioner (Appeals) that altered classification based on the phrase 'may not be considered as compound' versus 'not containing any other substances like plasticizer,' holding that such nuances should not override the established classification principles.The Court also referred to prior coordinate bench decisions and consistent application of tariff headings to identical goods, reinforcing the principle of consistency and predictability in classification.The Court acknowledged the inherent limitations of language in conveying technical product descriptions and endorsed interpreting legislative intent by examining the subject and object of the law when ambiguity exists.The Court noted procedural lapses but focused on substantive correctness of classification, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
