Floor & Furnishing India (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Cus., New Delhi on 13 March, 2002
In this regard, she referred to the decision in Philips India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (ACC), Mumbai, 2001 (132) E.L.T. 783 (T), wherein it was held that classification "decided by the Licensing Authority cannot govern classification under the Customs Tariff for the purpose of assessment of duty. Such classification is to be governed solely by the classification in the Customs Tariff." The learned SDR, further, submitted that the classification of the product in question was determined after examining the same, that manufacturer's catalogue was not made available and according to the Appellants themselves the impugned goods were not for any specific game; that the Adjudicating Authority found the goods to be nothing but tufted carpet/floor covering made of man made textile material and having all the characteristics of carpets/floor covering. She also mentioned that nowhere in Chapter 57 or in the HSN Explanatory Notes it is indicated that the Heading 57.03 covers only such articles as are meant for household use and the goods intended for "other than household" use are excluded therefrom; that moreover Note 1(f) to Chapter 95 even excludes sails of boats from the purview of Chapter 95; that even the business name of the Appellants indicate that they deal in floor and furnishing which is beyond common comprehension that they will be dealing with Astro turf required for sports. Finally, she submitted that there was misdeclaration on the part of the appellant which is evident from their conduct; that when they were asked to submit documents to justify classification, including catalogue, etc., there was no response from them; that they had not produced even copy of Proforma invoice, certificate of manufacture, original bill of lading; that there were over writing in Bill of lading presented by the appellants. In reply the learned Advocate mentioned that catalogue has not much meaning in determining the classification of the goods; that in case of doubt the Department can get the goods examined before finalizing the classification, that they are not responsible for over writings in Bill of lading as it is not their document and as such there was no misdeclaration on their part.