CESTAT
Larger Bench upholds classification of 'Optical Fibre Cables’ (OFC) imported
for use in Telecommunication under CTH 90.01, leviable to customs duty at 10%
under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus; Rejects assessees’ plea that
telecommunication wires and cables are classifiable under CTH 85.44 and OFC in
present case, consist of dual layers of Acrylic Coating over core and cladding
which result in 'individually sheathed fibre', thus satisfying description of
said CTH as well as design, feature and use stated in HSN Explanatory Notes
thereto; Remarks that Tariff does not make distinction between CTH 85.44 and
90.01 on the basis of product use and sole distinction is based on manner in
which fibres are 'sheathed', and that CTH 85.44 is not limited to telecommunication
wires but covers all insulated wires and cables; Holds that simultaneous use of
words “impregnated”, “coated”, “covered” or “sheathed” at various places in
Tariff makes it clear that terms ‘coating’ and ‘sheathing’ have different
meanings, while observing that colouring is solely for identification of fibres
at both ends and no conclusion regarding ‘dual acrylic coating’ constituting
sheath can be arrived basis same; Consequently, concurs with Division Bench
decision in Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd. and findings of AAR in
case of Alcatel Ltd., holding that OFCs made of individually sheathed fibres
are only classifiable under CTH 85.44, while others would fall under CTH 90.01
: Mumbai CESTAT
No comments:
Post a Comment