TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1244
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... purpose of import and clearance of the goods described as 'Burgess Calcined Aluminium Silicate', from the overseas supplier M/s Burgess Pigment Company, Sandersvile, Georgia, USA, the appellants had filed the Bill of Entry (B/E) No. 9047477 dated 03.10.2020 by classifying the goods under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 2507 0029 and claimed the benefit of duty exemption vide Serial No.120 of Notification No.50/2017-Customs dated 30.06.2017. The imported goods were subjected to First Check examination, and the representative samples were drawn and sent to the Deputy Chief Chemist (DYCC) of the Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL) at Nhava Sheva. On ascertaining the test results of the sample indicating that the imported goods are 'composed of aluminium silicate along with trace amount of Titanium, Calcium and Iron (Calcined Clay) and it is processed', the department had proposed for revising the classification of the said goods under CTI 2839 9090. 2.3 Since, the appellants importer needed the impugned goods urgently to meet out the pending orders of their customer, they had requested the department for waiver of show cause notice and personal hearing for ordering the re-assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssioner of Customs (Appeals) in the impugned order. 5. We have heard both the learned Chartered Accountant appearing for the appellants and the learned Authorized Representative of the Department and perused the case records and the synopsis given in the form of written submissions. 6. We find that the issue under dispute for consideration before us is the determination of proper classification of the impugned goods, either under CTI 2507 0029 as claimed by the appellants, or, under CTI 2839 9090 as determined by the department and upheld in impugned order, for the purpose of determining appropriate duty of customs payable thereon. 7.1 As regards the issue of dispute in classification, in the case before us, the contending classification of imported goods discussed in the impugned order are either under CTI 2507 0029 or CTI 2839 9090 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act. Thus, it is clear that at the Chapter level itself, there is a difference of opinion among the department and the appellants. The dispute in classification therefore lies in the narrow compass of analysis of the appropriate chapter headings and the relevant sub-headings under which the impugned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Other THE FIRST SCHEDULE - IMPORT TARIFF (Refer Section 2) THE GENERAL RULES FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF IMPORT TARIFF Classification of goods in this Schedule shall be governed by the following principles 1.The titles of Sections, Chapters and sub-chapters are provided for ease of reference only; for legal purposes, classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative Section or Chapter Notes and, provided such headings or Notes do not otherwise require, according to the following provisions:...." 7.2 On careful reading of the above tariff entries and by applying the General Interpretative Rules (GIR), particularly Rule 1, the position is made clear that Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 2507 covers all types of Kaolin and other kaolinic clays, calcined clay irrespective of whether calcined or not, to the extent these were subjected to various processes as mentioned in the Chapter Note No.1. It also included the Kaolin of pharmaceutical grade, chemical grade and other types. 7.3 Whereas the scope of tariff entry under CTH 2839 is to cover the separate chemical elements and separate chemically defined compounds, such as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding of chapter 25. Further, when such products are roasted, calcined, obtained by mixing or subjected to processing for the purpose eliminating the impurities would also remain within the chapter 25. Further, no where in the chemical test report it is mentioned that the impugned goods are of separate chemical elements or separate chemically defined compounds, for meriting the classification of goods under chapter 28. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the impugned goods would be appropriately classifiable under CTI 2507 0029, and not under the CTI 2839 9090 as determined in the order of the original authority which was upheld in the impugned order. 8.1 On examination of the factual matrix of the present case, we find the disputed issue involved in the present case before this Bench, has been examined in the context of Chapter Note 1 of Chapter 25 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 20 Micros Limited (supra). In the said case, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the product Kaolin Clay/ China clay calcined, is classifiably under chapter heading 2505. 8.2 The relevant paragraphs of the said judgement are extracted and given below: "10. In ....