1999 (3) TMI 400 - AT - Customs

Tribunal rules in favor of cable manufacturer in Customs Tariff Act case

CENTRAL CABLES (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, a cable manufacturing company, in a case regarding the classification of imported product T.S. 530 under the ... Classification Issues:Classification of imported product T.S. 530 under Heading 40.02 or sub-heading 3901.99 of the Customs Tariff Act.Analysis:The judgment involves three appeals arising from a common Adjudication order regarding the classification of the imported product T.S. 530. The appellants, a cable manufacturing company, imported the product and classified it under Heading 40.02 of the Customs Tariff Act. However, the Collector of Customs classified the product under sub-heading 3901.99, leading to demands for duty payment, confiscation of goods, and penalties. The Collector held that the product was a modified polymer and should be classified under Heading 39.01 due to Note 5 to Chapter 39. The appellants argued that the impugned goods had been classified under Heading 40.02 since 1984 and cited previous cases where similar products were classified as synthetic rubber under Heading 40.02.The appellant's representative contended that a previous decision by the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Universal Cables Ltd. had settled the classification issue in favor of Heading 40.02. They argued that the impugned product, T.S. 530, was chemically known as Chlorosulphonated Polyethylene Elastomer and should be classified under Heading 40.02. The representative highlighted that the product had been consistently classified under Heading 40.02 by the Custom House and referenced a specific case where a similar product was tested and found to be a modified polymer, not synthetic rubber. The appellant relied on the Universal Cables case and another decision involving Hypalon-40 to support their classification argument.The Respondent, represented by the ld. D.R., reiterated the findings of the impugned order, emphasizing that the impugned product was a saturated polymer and did not fall under the definition of synthetic rubber as per Note 4(a) to Chapter 40 of the Customs Tariff Act. The Respondent argued that saturated synthetic substances could not be classified as synthetic rubber and supported the Collector's classification under sub-heading 3901.99.After considering the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal referred to a previous case involving TOSO CSM 430, which was classified under Heading 40.02. Since T.S. 530 was another grade of the same product, the Tribunal applied the ratio of the previous decision and held that the impugned product should be classified under Heading 40.02. Consequently, the order was set aside, and all three appeals were allowed in favor of the Appellant.