1993 (10) TMI 152 - AT - Customs

Imported machinery classified as extruder under Notification No. 250/88-Cus benefits M/s. Purity Flex Pvt. Ltd.

The appellate tribunal ruled in favor of M/s. Purity Flex Pvt. Ltd., determining that the imported machinery qualified as an extruder under Notification ... Multilayer coater/extruder machine Issues: Classification of imported machinery under Heading 8477.20 or 8479.89, eligibility for benefits under Notification No. 250/88-Cus. and Notification No. 125/86-Cus.Analysis:1. The case involved M/s. Purity Flex Pvt. Ltd. importing an extrusion lamination plant and accessories from Korea, claiming classification under Heading 8477.20. The department questioned the classification and suggested Heading 8479.89.2. The adjudicating authority ruled that the machine was primarily a lamination machine, not an extruder, and should be classified under Heading 8479.89. The machine did not qualify for benefits under Notification No. 125/86 due to not being an aseptic packaging machine.3. The appellate authority overturned the original decision, stating the imported machinery was an extruder, not a laminator, and eligible for benefits under Notification No. 250/88-Cus.4. The appellate tribunal considered whether the machinery could be classified under Heading 8477.20 or 8479.89 and if benefits under Notification No. 250/88-Cus. were applicable.5. The appellant argued the machinery was a multi-layer coater/extruder as per Notification No. 250/88-Cus., citing industry references on extrusion coating and lamination processes.6. The tribunal emphasized that in interpreting taxing statutes, the understanding of trade terms prevailed. The machinery's extrusion coating process was deemed covered under the term 'Multi-layer coater/extruder machine' in Notification No. 250/88-Cus.7. Consequently, the classification under sub-headings 8477.20 or 8479.89 became secondary, as the machinery fell under the scope of the notification for multi-layer coater/extruder machines.8. The tribunal upheld the appellate authority's decision, emphasizing its thorough examination of the machinery's operation, and rejected the department's appeal.