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 SP660 suspension grade classification for BCD rate-CTH 39042110 accepted; exemption applied, duty reduced.</h1> The dominant issue was classification of imported PVC Resin SP660 Suspension Grade and the consequential applicable BCD rate under the relevant exemption ... Classification of imported goods - PVC Resin SP660 Suspension Grade - classifiable under CTH 39042110 as Other Poly (Vinyl Chloride): Non-Plasticised or under the CTH Sub-heading 390410 Poly (Vinyl Chloride) not mixed with any other substances and more specifically under CTH 39041090-Other category? - BCD is chargeable @ 2% on the impugned goods by granting exemption under N/N. 046/2011-Customs dated 01.06.2011 (Sl.No.459) or chargeable @ 5% BCD under Sl. No. 458 of the said notification? - HELD THAT:- Identical issue came up for consideration before this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Arun Polymers [2025 (7) TMI 1832 - CESTAT CHENNAI] wherein Revenue had similarly relied on exactly the same test report and clarification dated 25.02.2015 given by CIPET but in its Final Order, this Tribunal followed its own decision in the case of Ram Nath Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs [2025 (7) TMI 1345 - CESTAT CHENNAI] where it was held that the imported goods are correctly classifiable under sub-heading 3904.21 (Tariff Item 3902 21 10). In view of identical issue involved in this appeal and the facts being the same, the issue is no longer res integra. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED (i) Whether 'PVC Resin SP660 Suspension Grade' was correctly classifiable under CTH 39042110 (Other poly(vinyl chloride): non-plasticised: poly(vinyl chloride) resins) or under CTH 39041090 (poly(vinyl chloride), not mixed with any other substances: other), on the basis of the test report/clarification and the tariff structure discussed by the Tribunal. (ii) Consequent to classification, whether the goods were entitled to concessional BCD @ 2% under the relevant serial entry of Notification No. 046/2011-Customs, or liable to BCD @ 5% under the alternative serial entry. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (i): Correct tariff classification of 'PVC Resin SP660 Suspension Grade' Legal framework (as applied/discussed by the Tribunal): The Tribunal applied the classification approach that where a specific tariff entry exists, classification must be under that entry rather than a residuary entry, and relied on the interpretative principle reflected in the reasoning adopted in earlier decisions it followed (including preference for the more specific description). The Tribunal treated the competing entries under Heading 3904 as requiring a reading that gives effect to the specific sub-heading for non-plasticised PVC resins. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's basis for adopting CTH 39041090 was the CIPET test report and clarification (including reliance on an identical report/clarification used in another importer's case). The Tribunal held that an identical dispute on the same product and the same CIPET clarification had already been decided by the Tribunal on merits, and that those decisions concluded that the appropriate classification was CTH 39042110. The Tribunal reasoned that the product described as PVC resin suspension grade, non-plasticised, is covered by the specific eight-digit entry for 'poly(vinyl chloride) resins' under the non-plasticised sub-heading, while CTH 39041090 operates as a residual 'other' category under a different branch and cannot displace the specific resin entry for the period concerned. Conclusion: The Tribunal conclusively held that the impugned goods are classifiable under CTH 39042110, and not under CTH 39041090, and therefore set aside the contrary classification adopted in the impugned order. Issue (ii): Eligibility to concessional BCD under Notification No. 046/2011-Customs Legal framework (as applied/discussed by the Tribunal): The Tribunal treated the applicable BCD rate under the notification as a direct consequence of the correct tariff classification between the two competing serial entries providing different rates. Interpretation and reasoning: Having held the goods to fall under CTH 39042110, the Tribunal followed the same outcome reached in the earlier decisions it applied, under which goods so classified were eligible for the concessional rate claimed at import. The Tribunal therefore rejected the denial of the concessional rate that had been based on reclassification to CTH 39041090. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the concession corresponding to classification under CTH 39042110, set aside the order denying the benefit and demanding duty on the basis of 5% BCD, and granted consequential relief as per law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
