Case Law Details
Perfect Aerosol Valves Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (NS-V) (CESTAT Mumbai)
From the plain reading of HSN explanatory notes to heading 9606, it is understood that this heading covers under its scope, all preparations of a kind used in cosmetics and more specifically scent sprays, toilet sprays. Thus, these are essentially required for applying cosmetics like spray formation of the liquid that is used as scent or other similar perfume etc. This does not cover all types of mounts and heads, for dispersal or spray of liquids as the phrase ‘therefor’ appearing in HSN description of 9606.10 and in the CTI 9616 10 at the six digit level of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, is limited in its scope covering such mounts and heads for scent sprays and similar toilet sprays only. This position is also made clear from the scope of “—” covered under the “ – ” , in terms of General Explanatory Notes mean that the mounts and heads are sub-classification of goods mentioned at single dash level i.e., scent sprays and similar toilet sprays.
From the above discussion and analysis, we are of the prima facie view that the impugned goods are classifiable under 8481 8090, as the imported goods at the time of import remain as ‘appliance used for spraying or dispersion of liquid’ called as ‘aerosol valves along with components’.
CESTAT also find that our such view on the aspect of classification of imported goods under heading 8481 has also been supported by the Note No.17 of the HSN explanatory notes to chapter heading 8481.
CESTAT further find that the learned Commissioner in arriving at the conclusion for classification of the imported goods under the heading 9616 1020 has relied upon the order of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Reckit & Colman of India Ltd. – 2005 (190) E.L.T. 221 (Tri. Mumbai). The reasoning adopted in the above case is that scope of coverage of goods under chapter heading 8424 is for industrial use, where as the classification under chapter heading 9616 is for consumer purposes. However, we find from the detailed discussion on the scope of coverage of goods under chapter heading 8481 as discussed in paragraphs 9.1 and 9.2 above, that this above view of restricting goods of 8481 only for industrial use is not supported by the facts. Further, in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Specialty Valves – 2006 (202) E.L.T. 785 (Tri. Mumbai) the imported items were of spray pumps and the facts of those cases are not not similar to the facts of the case before us, in order to apply the ratio from such orders. Further, in respect of the issues regarding classification of goods, unless these are ‘identical goods’ or ‘similar goods’, which are same in all respects, including physical characteristics, quality etc., or performs the same functions and to be commercially interchangeable with the impugned goods, the ratio of such classification cannot be applied directly.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
