2000(10)LCX0246

IN THE CEGAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI

S/Shri Gowri Shankar, Member (T) and S.S. Kang, Member (J)

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI

Versus

HOEC BARDAHL INDIA LTD.

Order No. 3855/2000-WZB/C-I, dated 27-10-2000 in Appeal No. C/675-R/96-Mum.

Advocated By :   Shri T.D. Bodade, JDR, for the Appellant.

None, for the Respondents.

[Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of various products imported by HOEC Bardahl India Ltd. The goods were described by the importer as carburettor cleaner, octane booster, radiator fast etc. The customs house was therefore of the view that the goods should be classified under heading 3811.00. This heading covers anti-knock preparations, viscosity improvers, and other prepared additives, for mineral oils (including gasoline) or for other liquids used for the same purpose as mineral oils. It therefore did not accept the classification of the importer of heading 27.10. The Asstt. Commissioner issued order to classify the goods under 3811.00.

2. The importer appealed this order. The Commissioner (Appeals) found the test report for the goods showed them to be composed of non-aromatic mineral hydrocarbon oil additives having flash point having 94°C. That mineral oil contained hydrocarbon oil more than 70% of the weight. Going only by the test report, she concluded that the goods were classifiable under heading 27.10. This is challenged by the department's appeal.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals)’s order appears to be based only on the fact that the mineral hydrocarbon oil content of the imported goods is more than 70%. This is no doubt a condition contained in that heading for classifying the goods under heading 27.10. However that heading is for preparation not elsewhere specified. There can be no dispute that the goods are not plain mineral hydrocarbon oil but are preparations containing addition to the hydrocarbon oil, other constituents. The test report, indicating the goods to be “additives” makes this clear. From the use of the product as we have mentioned above, they appear to be more appropriately classifiable under 38.11. We are therefore of the view that the classification claimed by the heading 38.11 is correct. We therefore set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)’s order, allow the appeal and restore the Asstt. Commissioner's order classifying the goods under heading 38.11.

_______

Equivalent 2001 (128) ELT 222 (Tri. - Mum.)