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>Tribunal remands Customs Tariff classification decision for fresh evaluation, emphasizes evidence importance</h1> <h3>COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Versus BPL. SANYO TECHNOLOGIES LTD.</h3> COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Versus BPL. SANYO TECHNOLOGIES LTD. - 1993 (68) E.L.T. 671 (Tribunal) Issues:Classification of goods under Tariff Heading 85.29 vs. 85.22 in Customs Tariff.Analysis:The judgment deals with the issue of classification of goods under Tariff Heading 85.29 as parts of Radio Cassette Recorders as opposed to the classification under Tariff Heading 85.22 of the Customs Tariff. The learned Collector (Appeals) allowed the respondents' plea for assessment under Tariff Heading 85.29, citing evidence presented by the appellants and Section note 2(b) to Section XVI. The Department, represented by the SDR, argued against this classification, emphasizing that the evidence considered was not discussed in the order and that the Collector's (Appeals) order was incorrect. The Tribunal reserved orders after hearing both parties.The Tribunal noted that the competing entries were 85.22 and 85.29 under the Customs Tariff. It highlighted that the goods imported were Magnetic Heads for sound recording and reproducing systems, and the issue was whether they were parts of apparatus under Heading 85.20 or suitable for use with apparatus under Heading Nos. 85.25 to 85.28. The respondents claimed to manufacture radio-cum-tape recorders under Heading 85.27, asserting that the Magnetic heads were for use in the sound recording portion. However, the Tribunal found no factual determination by the lower appellate authority on whether the parts were solely or principally meant for the radio-cum-tape recorders. It criticized the lack of consideration of relevant facts and undisclosed evidence, leading to the decision to set aside the Collector's (Appeals) order and remand the matter for fresh consideration.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remand, directing the Collector (Appeals) to pass de novo orders considering all relevant facts and evidence. The judgment emphasizes the importance of proper consideration of evidence and relevant facts in determining the classification of goods under the Customs Tariff, highlighting the need for transparency and due process in decision-making.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
