2005(03)LCX0039

IN THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI

S/Shri C.N.B. Nair, Member (T) and T. Anjaneyulu, Member (J)

SAMSON RUBBER INDUSTRIES

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI

Final Order No. 482/2005, dated 21-3-2005 in Appeal No. C/258/2003

Advocated By : Shri S. Ignatius, Advocate, for the Appellant.

Shri C. Mani, JDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per: C.N.B. Nair, Member (T) (Oral)]. - The appellant imported a consignment of ‘Cellulose fibres’ under the brand name ‘Santoweb-O’ under Bill of Entry dated 9-11-2000. The consignment was provisionally assessed under Chapter 47. Subsequently, upon finalisation of the assessment, the Customs authorities held that the classification under Chapter 38 would be the correct classification. When the matter came before the Tribunal, the case was remanded. In remand, Commissioner (Appeals) passed the impugned order holding that classification is to be made under Chapter sub-heading No. 3812.20 and confirmed the differential duty demand of about Rs. 1.9 lakhs. The present appeal challenges that classification.

2. Chapter sub-heading No. 4706 is in respect of ‘Pulp of fibres’, while Chapter sub-heading No. 3812.20 is for ‘Compound plasticisers for rubber or plastics etc.’ The submission of the ld. Counsel for the appellants is that according to the composition indicated by the foreign supplier, the product corUt8 of the following materials :-

 

Relying on this composition ld. Counsel has submitted that classification as a ‘Pulp’ under 47 would be appropriate. He has also submitted that in any event classification under Chapter 47 is more appropriate, as had been done by the foreign supplier, while exporting the goods. As regard classification under Chapter 3812.20, he has submitted that this classification would be wholly inappropriate in the light of the following functions of the product indicated by he supplier :-
“reinforcement for uncured and cured rubber compounds, increases product stiffness and reduces cut growth rate in rubber compounds.”

He has also pointed out that according to the Chemical examiner of the Customs Department, the sample is in the form of a block of fibrous mass. It is composed of Cellulose fibrous materials treated with polymeric organic compounds and additives. Ld. Counsel has submitted that it is of significance that the Chemical examiner has stated that the item is known to find use as reinforcement agent in rubber industry. It is his submission that Plasticisers and stiffening/reinforcetments agents perform opposite functions and the present item which is for reinforcement cannot be treated as Plasticisers and classified under 3812.20.

3. We have perused the records and heard the ld. DR also. He has taken us extensively through impugned order and its findings.
4. The classification has been ordered as a ‘Compound Plasticisers’ for ‘rubber’ or ‘plastics’ under the impugned order. The Commissioner has thus, treated a ‘Rubber Reinforcement Materials’ as placticiser. According to the definition of Plasticisers in the Dictionary of Rubber produced by the appellant, a Plasticiser is “A material, which may be added to a polymer or polymers to improve flexibility, particularly at low temperatures”. The dictionary also has indicated the names of a large number of Plasticisers/Softeners produced by foreign manufacturers. The item in question does not find mention among these Plasticisers. This indirectly confirms the report of the supplier is that it increased the products stiffness and not flexibility. It is clear from the definition of Plasticiser in the dictionary that an item that increases stiffness cannot be a Plasticiser, as stiffness and plasticity are contradictory qualities. The composition of the product also does not support classification as Plasticiser because 65-70% of the material is Pulp, which is not a Plasticiser. Thus, all relevant factors go against re-classification under Heading 3812.20 as ‘Plasticiser”. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed.       

Equivalent 2005 (185) ELT 0419 (Tri. - Chennai)