Inflatable rafts fall under the specific tariff entry for rafts, and pre-notice duty demands on reclassification are unsustainable.

Inflatable rubber rafts were classified under heading 8907.00 because the tariff entry specifically covered inflatable rafts, while heading 8906.00 applied to vessels and lifeboats other than rowing boats; the claim for classification as a vessel was rejected. A duty demand for clearances made before the first notice dated 28-5-92 was unsustainable because the reclassification proposal had not yet been put to the assessee, but the later demand remained maintainable to the extent covered by the valid notice. Relief was therefore confined to the earlier period demand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the inflatable rubber raft manufactured by the appellant was classifiable under heading 8907.00 as an inflatable raft or under heading 8906.00 as a vessel. (ii) Whether duty demands for the period prior to the notice dated 28-5-92 were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the inflatable rubber raft manufactured by the appellant was classifiable under heading 8907.00 as an inflatable raft or under heading 8906.00 as a vessel.

Analysis: The goods were admittedly inflatable rafts. Heading 8907.00 covers other floating structures, including inflatable rafts, while heading 8906.00 covers vessels and lifeboats other than rowing boats. On the admitted nature of the goods and the tariff description, the merchandise fell within heading 8907.00.

Conclusion: The classification under heading 8907.00 was upheld and the assessee's claim under heading 8906.00 was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether duty demands for the period prior to the notice dated 28-5-92 were sustainable.

Analysis: The earlier notice dated 28-5-92 was the first notice proposing reversal of the classification. Any demand for clearances made before that date could not be sustained, while the later notice for a subsequent period remained maintainable to the extent of the duty demanded.

Conclusion: The demand for the prior period was unsustainable, but the later demand was upheld to the extent covered by the valid notice.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part, with relief confined to the unsustainable demand for the earlier period.

Ratio Decidendi: Inflatable rafts are classifiable under the tariff entry specifically covering inflatable rafts, and a duty demand for a period preceding the first notice proposing reclassification is not sustainable.

---