FINNER INDIA LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are concerned in this appeal with the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate tribunal dealing with antimony oxide. The majority view of the tribunal was that it had been correctly classified by the customs Authorities under Entry 30 of the Customs Tariff as a pigment. The dissenting Member took the view that antimony oxide imported by the appellants fell within Entry 28 because the relevant invoice "shows that it is of commercial quality used in PVC conveyor belting manufacture".

(2.) Entries 28 and 30 read thus:

(3.) The appellants manufacture fire-resistant belting. They use antimony oxide, which is a fire-retarding chemical in such manufacture. It appears that the Import Control Policy grades antimony oxide into two grades, namely, painter grade antimony oxide and antimony oxide of non-painter grade. Thelearned dissenting Member has quoted Hawley's Condensed Dictionary which shows that antimony oxide can be supplied in two grades; technical and pigment. Reading the entries along with the Import Control Policy, as it must be, antimony oxide would be classifiable under one or the other entry depending upon whether it is painter grade or non-painter grade. The invoice relating to the antimony oxide imported by the appellants shows it to be of the non-painter grade. It must, therefore, be classified under Entry 28.