2026 (3) TMI 421 - AT - Customs

Polymer impregnation visibility determines tariff classification; absent visible coating, made-up interior blinds classification prevails.

The central issue was tariff classification of imported polyester roller blinds fabric as an impregnated textile versus a made-up interior blind. The ... Classification of goods - imported vide 2 (two) Bills of Entry, declared as 'Polyester Roller Window Blinds Fabric ready for use and 'Polyester Fabric for Ready Goods 118', and self-assessed under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 6303 9200 (made-up textile articles) under claim of duty exemption at Sl. No. 304 of Notification. No. 82/2017 dated 27.10.2017 and at Sl. No. 494 of Notification. No. 152/2009 dated 31.12.2009, respectively - classification specific over general - visibility test under chapter note 2(a) - objective characteristics test - confiscation for misdeclaration. Visibility of polymer coating to the naked eye as determinative for classification under heading 5903 - Whether reclassification of the imported polyester fabric under CTH 5903.90 is sustainable in the absence of any test or report addressing visibility of polymer impregnation to the naked eye as required by Chapter Note 2(a)(1) to Chapter 59. - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal examined the Textile Committee and Customs House Laboratory reports relied upon by the Department and found that neither report contains any testing or express finding on whether the polymer impregnation/coating is visible to the naked eye. Chapter Note 2(a)(1) to Chapter 59 excludes fabrics from heading 5903 where the impregnation, coating or covering cannot be seen with the naked eye; therefore visibility is an essential classificatory criterion. In the absence of any test or report on this critical parameter, the Tribunal held that the reclassification to CTH 5903.90 could not be sustained, since it rested on reports that did not establish the determinative requirement of visible impregnation. [Paras 24, 25, 26] Reclassification under CTH 5903.90 is not sustainable because the critical parameter of naked-eye visibility of polymer coating was not tested or reported; the reclassification is set aside on that ground. Classification of made-up textile articles under heading 6303 - Whether the imported material is properly classifiable as made-up textile articles under CTH 6303.92.00 (interior blinds) for the consignments in question. - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal considered the commercial description, the physical condition of the consignments and comparative imports at other ports. It noted that some earlier consignments cleared at other ports were treated as CTH 6303.92.00, but in the present consignments the goods arrived in running length (roll form) without fittings and were not cut to size or ready for installation as roller blinds. The Tribunal nevertheless concluded that, given the Department's failure to establish visible impregnation and having regard to the classification practice and particulars of the imports, the impugned reclassification could not be sustained. The Tribunal therefore allowed the appeal and granted consequential relief as per law. [Paras 23, 25, 26] For the consignments under appeal the impugned reclassification is set aside and the appeal is allowed, restoring the classification position asserted by the importer (CTH 6303.92.00) for the purposes of the present adjudication. Final Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the adjudicating authority's reclassification of the two consignments to CTH 5903.90 because the decisive requirement under Chapter Note 2(a)(1) - visibility of polymer coating to the naked eye - was neither tested nor reported; in consequence the appeal was allowed and the impugned reclassification was set aside with consequential relief as per law. Issues: Whether the imported polyester roller window blinds fabric is classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 5903.90 as textile fabric impregnated with plastics or under Heading 6303 92 00 as a made-up textile article (interior blinds), and whether the test reports sufficiently establish visibility of polymer impregnation required by Note 2(a) of Chapter 59.Analysis: The Tribunal examined the Textile Committee and Customs House Laboratory test reports and the requirements of Note 2(a) of Chapter 59 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - First Schedule, including the proviso that Heading 5903 applies to fabrics impregnated with plastics except where the impregnation cannot be seen with the naked eye (Note 2(a)(1)). The Tribunal considered Rule 3(a) of the General Rules for Interpretation (specific description preferred) and authorities on made-up articles and classification. The factual record showed that the laboratories' reports did not report or test the critical parameter of visibility of polymer coating to the naked eye required by Note 2(a)(1). The Tribunal also reviewed the commercial character and treatment of the imported material, evidence of consistent classification at other ports under Heading 6303 92 00, and the packing/fitment details showing the imports in roll form without fittings necessary for immediate installation as blinds.Conclusion: The reclassification of the goods to Customs Tariff Heading 5903.90 is unsustainable because the critical parameter of visibility of polymer impregnation (as required by Note 2(a)(1) of Chapter 59) was not tested or reported; consequently the impugned reclassification is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee with consequential relief, if any, as per law.Ratio Decidendi: For classification under Heading 5903, the presence of polymer impregnation must be shown to be visible to the naked eye as required by Note 2(a)(1) of Chapter 59; absent a report testing or establishing such visibility, classification as an impregnated textile (5903) cannot be sustained and specific classification (6303 for made-up interior blinds) prevails where supported by factual and commercial characteristics.