Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Custom Duty

Textile Rolls for Labels classifiable Under CTH 5807: CAAR Mumbai

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2025 taxguru.in 8569
Case Name
In re Shiv Enterprises (CAAR Mumbai)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Advertisement

In re Shiv Enterprises (CAAR Mumbai)

CAAR held that imported Nylon, Polyester, and Taffeta rolls, ranging from 10 mm to 305 mm, are classifiable as textile labels under CTH 5807, following HSN explanatory notes and judicial precedents.

In In re Shiv Enterprises (CAAR Mumbai), the applicant sought an advance ruling regarding the classification of various textile rolls intended for import, including Nylon Taffeta rolls, Polyester Taffeta rolls, Tearaway Taffeta rolls, Iron-on fusing Taffeta rolls, and multiple types of polyester satin and cotton rolls. These products, available in widths ranging from 10 mm to 305 mm, were described as having printable features, and the applicant sought clarity on their classification under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, specifically whether they fell under Chapter 58.06 (narrow woven fabrics) or Chapter 58.07 (labels, badges, and similar articles of textile materials).

The authority considered the submissions of the applicant, which emphasized that the products were woven, not embroidered, and had no alternative use other than for printing as labels. The jurisdictional authority had contended that the products lacked inscriptions or motifs by weaving or printing, potentially excluding them from Chapter 58.07. The applicant cited the Calcutta High Court decision in M/s Bijay Kumar Poddar vs. Union of India (2000) 126 ELT 393 (Cal.), which held that plain label strips, intended for printing and without alternate use, could be classified as labels.

Legal Framework and HSN Notes Analysis

Chapter 58.06 covers narrow woven fabrics, including strips of warp and weft fabric not exceeding 30 cm in width, with selvedges or false selvedges, and bolducs (warp-only fabrics glued together). The chapter excludes bandages, braided galloons, and woven labels, badges, and similar articles, which are more specifically covered under Chapter 58.07. HSN explanatory notes clarify that Chapter 58.07 encompasses woven labels, badges, and similar textile articles in pieces, strips, or cut-to-size, provided they are not embroidered. Labels are defined broadly, including commercial labels and strips intended for marking apparel, household linens, or other goods, and the term “similar” is expansive, as held in Supreme Court cases such as CCE, Shillong vs. Wood Craft Products Ltd., 1995 (77) ELT 23 (S.C.) and Nat Steel Equipment Pvt. Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, 1988 (34) ELT 8 (S.C.).

The authority relied on the functional test established by the Apex Court in Atul Glass Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1986 (25 ELT 473 S.C.) and Commissioner of Customs & C.Ex., Amritsar v. D.L. Steels, 2022 (381 ELT 289 S.C.), which directs that the classification of goods should consider how the product is identified by users or the trade, based on its functional character. Applying this, the textile rolls in question are identified as labels or similar articles by their end-use, i.e., as strips intended for printing, marking, or labeling.

Discussion and Ruling

The authority observed that, although most products were within the 10–305 mm width range and some exceeded the typical 30 cm width threshold for narrow fabrics, the classification of narrow fabrics under Chapter 58.06 explicitly excludes woven labels and similar articles covered by Chapter 58.07. Therefore, the products could not be classified under 58.06. Considering HSN explanatory notes and judicial precedents, the authority concluded that the rolls are articles similar to textile labels in strips, even if not printed or embroidered at the time of import, and fall under Chapter 58.07.

The decision referenced the Apex Court’s guidance on the meaning of “similar” in tariff items, emphasizing that similarity does not require identity but correspondence or resemblance. The ruling also took into account the applicant’s assertion that the products have no alternative use other than printing or labeling, which reinforced their functional identity as labels.

Classification Outcome

The products were accordingly classified at the 8-digit Customs Tariff level as follows:

Paid content

Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Sandeep Kanoi
Qualification: CA in Job / Business
Company: Taxguru Consultancy
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra
Articles Published: 19,721

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.