TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Classification dispute resolved for Ankerhearth NB-70 under Customs Tariff. Refractory material ruling.</h1> <h3>MISHRA DHATU NIGAM LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS</h3> The Tribunal classified the imported goods, Ankerhearth NB-70, under sub-heading 38.01/19(1) of the Customs Tariff, rejecting the initial assessment under ... Classification Issues:Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff - Refractory constructional material or other articles - Reassessment under different headings - Test report not produced - Appeal based on classification under Chapter Heading 69.01/02 or 38.01/19(1) - Goods in lump form - Interpretation of relevant legal provisions - Classification under Chapter 69 or Chapter 38 - Residual classification under sub-heading 38.01/19(1).Detailed Analysis:The case involved the classification of imported goods, specifically 50 pellets of Ankerhearth NB-70, under the Customs Tariff. The goods were initially assessed under Chapter Heading 69.10/14 as 'Other articles including sanitary fixtures, tableware and domesticware.' The appellants sought reassessment under Chapter Heading 69.01/02 as refractory constructional material, which was rejected by the Deputy Collector and the Collector of Customs (Appeals) based on the goods being in lump form and considered raw materials, not covered by Chapter 69.The appellants contended that Ankerhearth NB-70 Ramming Mass should be classified under Chapter Heading 69.01/02 as refractory constructional material, rather than under Heading 69.10/14 or Heading 38.01/19(1). Despite referencing a test report in their appeal grounds, no such report was produced. The Manufacturer's Test Certificate showed the composition of the goods, emphasizing their refractory nature.Due to the appellants' inability to attend a hearing, they requested a decision on merits, highlighting the potential classification under Heading 38.01/19(1) if not under Heading 69.01/02, seeking a refund based on duty differences. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) suggested that if the goods were refractory cements or mortars, they could be classified under Heading 38.01/19(1), which was not the subject of the appeal.The Department argued that since the goods were in powder form, they could not be classified under Heading 69.01/02, which required definite shapes. The Tribunal examined the relevant Customs Tariff provisions, particularly Heading 69.01/02, which covered refractory constructional goods, and noted that the goods in lump form did not fall under Chapter 69, leading to consideration under Chapter 38.Interpreting the term 'similar,' the Tribunal referenced a Supreme Court decision, emphasizing that goods classified as 'similar' need not be identical but corresponding or resembling in many respects. Considering the composition and description of the goods, the Tribunal concluded that none of the sub-items under sub-heading 38.01/19 covered the goods, leading to classification under the residuary entry (1) of sub-heading 38.01/19.Consequently, the Tribunal directed the classification of Ankerhearth NB-70 under sub-heading 38.01/19(1) of the Customs Tariff, setting aside the lower authorities' orders and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
