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 Classifies Aluminium Coils as Raw Materials for Blinds, Not Final Products</h1> <h3>ALPS INDS. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, (AIR CARGO), NEW DELHI</h3> The Tribunal ruled in favor of M/s Alps Industries Ltd., classifying the imported Aluminium Coils Alloy as raw materials for venetian blinds under ... Classification Issues involved:Classification of imported goods - Whether Aluminium Coils Alloy are classifiable under sub-heading 7607.19 or sub-heading 8302.41 of the Customs Tariff Act.Analysis:1. The appeal questioned the classification of Aluminium Coils Alloy imported by M/s Alps Industries Ltd. under sub-heading 7607.19 or sub-heading 8302.41 of the Customs Tariff Act. The Appellants argued that the imported coils were raw materials for manufacturing venetian blinds and did not undergo processes to be considered as venetian blinds or components. They contended that the coils satisfied the definition of plates, sheets, strips, and foils under Chapter 76. The Department classified the goods under sub-heading 8302.41 based on a previous decision, but the Appellants disagreed, citing differences in the nature and processing of the goods.2. The Appellants emphasized that the imported coils were not processed into venetian blinds like the goods in a previous case. They argued that the end use cannot solely determine classification and referred to legal precedents to support their stance. The Appellants highlighted that the Department consistently classified the goods under sub-heading 7607.19, indicating their nature as raw material. They presented evidence from Bills of Entry to support their classification.3. The Department, represented by Shri R.D. Negi, contended that the end use of the goods was crucial for classification under Heading 83.02, which mentions items suitable for furniture, blinds, etc. They referenced legal cases and examination reports to support their argument. The Department pointed out that the imported Aluminium Strips were color-coated and intended for use in manufacturing venetian blinds. The Appellants countered by arguing against an expansive interpretation of the term 'suitable for.'4. Upon considering both parties' submissions, the Tribunal found merit in the Appellants' argument that the imported goods were raw materials for venetian blinds and had not been processed into final products. The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence showing that the goods had transformed into articles of different headings. The Tribunal referenced Chapter 76 definitions and Explanatory Notes to support the classification of the goods as raw materials rather than finished products suitable for blinds under Heading 83.02.5. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from a previous case, Interarch Building Products, where goods had undergone significant processing to become suitable for specific purposes. In the absence of similar findings or examination reports in the current case, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of M/s Alps Industries Ltd., emphasizing the raw material nature of the imported Aluminium Coils Alloy.This detailed analysis of the judgment thoroughly examines the classification issue of the imported goods under the Customs Tariff Act, highlighting the arguments presented by both parties and the Tribunal's reasoning for the final decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
