Customs Tribunal Denies Concessional Duty Rate Appeal: Goods Misclassified, Notification 232/83 Inapplicable

GENERAL INDUSTRIAL CONTROLS P. LTD. Versus COLLR. OF CUS., BOMBAY

GENERAL INDUSTRIAL CONTROLS P. LTD. Versus COLLR. OF CUS., BOMBAY - 1999 (110) E.L.T. 534 (Tribunal) Issues: Classification of goods under Customs Tariff Act, eligibility for concessional rate of customs duty under Notification 232/83-Cus, rejection of refund claim.

Classification of Goods under Customs Tariff Act:
The Collector of Customs (Appeals) rejected the appeal of the appellants as they did not challenge the classification of goods before the lower authority or claim alternate classification at the appellate stage. The goods imported were described as PCB complete with NICO cell and were assessed under Chapter Heading 91.01/11 by the Customs authorities, while the appellants claimed classification under Chapter Heading 85.18/27(1). The provisional assessment of the Bill of Entry related to valuation, and the Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim on the grounds that the benefit of Notification 232/83 could not be extended to the appellants.

Eligibility for Concessional Rate of Customs Duty under Notification 232/83-Cus:
The appellants, an electronic industry, filed a refund claim under Notification 232/83-Cus, seeking a concessional rate of customs duty. However, the Assistant Collector rejected the claim, stating that the classification of goods under Chapter 91 made them ineligible for the benefits of the notification. The appellants argued that their claim was based on the notification covering goods of Chapter 85 and that they were entitled to the concessional rate of duty under the notification.

Rejection of Refund Claim:
The appellants' appeal and refund claim were rejected by the learned Collector (Appeals) based on the finding that Chapter 91, under which the goods were classified, was not covered by Notification 232/83. The appellants had not agitated the classification of the goods under Chapter 91, and their claim was solely based on the benefits of the notification applicable to goods of Chapter 85. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the appeal and the refund claim, concluding that the appellants were not entitled to the benefits of Notification 232/83.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the rejection of the appeal and the refund claim, emphasizing that the appellants had not challenged the classification of goods under Chapter 91 and were not entitled to the concessional rate of customs duty under Notification 232/83.