Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Hydroquinone imported in the described consignments was classifiable as prepared rubber chemicals under Heading 38.01/19(7) of the Customs Tariff or under the residuary photographic/organic chemical heading, and whether the department had discharged the burden of proving classification under the rubber-chemical entry.
Analysis: The imported goods were described in the invoices as Hydroquinone Tech photo grade, while the literature produced showed several applications, including photographic developers, polymerization inhibitors, food additives, dye intermediates, pigments, pharmaceuticals and antioxidant use for organic rubber chemicals. The department relied only on one possible use shown in the literature and did not adduce supporting evidence to show that the goods were predominantly used as rubber chemicals. The chemical test report also stated that the sample was not surface active in character and was not mentioned to be used as a rubber chemical in the books available. In these circumstances, the department failed to establish that the goods fell within Heading 38.01/19(7), and the evidence supported the importers' claim of photographic use.
Conclusion: The classification adopted by the department was not sustained, and the importers were entitled to classification on the basis of the evidence produced by them.