Nickel alloy classification turns on weight predominance; stainless steel classification and exemption claim rejected for lack of proof.

Imported incolloy goods were held not to be nickel alloy because the tariff chapter notes required nickel to predominate by weight over each other element, and the analysis showed ferrous content predominated instead. The goods were therefore classified as stainless steel under the Customs Tariff Act, 1985. The separate claim for exemption under Notification No. 150/81-Cus. failed because no evidence was produced to establish entitlement. The classification adopted by the authorities was affirmed and the exemption benefit was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported goods described as incolloy were classifiable as nickel alloy or as stainless steel under the Customs Tariff Act, 1985; (ii) Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 150/81-Cus.

Issue (i): Whether the imported goods described as incolloy were classifiable as nickel alloy or as stainless steel under the Customs Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis: The analysis certificate showed nickel at 30.25%, chromium at 20.40% and ferrous at 46.95%. The applicable chapter notes under the Customs Tariff Act, 1985 defined nickel alloys by the predominance of nickel by weight over each of the other elements. Since ferrous predominated and nickel did not, the earlier classification view under the old tariff regime was held inapplicable.

Conclusion: The goods were not nickel alloy and were correctly classifiable as stainless steel. The finding was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 150/81-Cus.

Analysis: No evidence was produced to substantiate entitlement to the exemption benefit claimed under the notification.

Conclusion: The exemption claim was rejected. The finding was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The classification adopted by the authorities was affirmed and the exemption claim failed, resulting in dismissal of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the tariff chapter notes expressly define a metal alloy by predominance of a specified constituent by weight, classification must follow that definition and an exemption claim must be supported by evidence.

---