1. Import of inner tube valves for tyre manufacture — Dispute over classification under Heading 84.61 of the Customs Tariff. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 1276
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N.Kirpal : S.C.Agrawal
Goodyear India Limited: Modi Rubber Limited
Versus
Collector Of Customs Bombay: Union Of India
Case No. : 2049 , 2055 of 1988
Date of Decision : 9/25/97
Important Points
In customs classification, a list of materials provided as examples (using terms like "such as") is illustrative and not exhaustive. If a product meets the primary descriptive criteria, it qualifies for that classification even if the specific material is not explicitly listed.
Subject
Tax Law - Customs Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Customs Tariff - Heading 84.61 - Classification of inner tube valves - Whether valves made of copper alloy, certified as corrosion-resisting, fall under sub-heading (1) "Not elsewhere specified" or sub-heading (2) "valves made of corrosion-resisting material" - The list of materials such as stainless steel, nickel monel, incoloy, and hastelloy mentioned in sub-heading (2) is illustrative and not exhaustive - If the material from which the valves are made is a corrosion-resisting material, they would fall under sub-heading (2). (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
Inner tube valves imported for the manufacture of tyre tubes were classified by the revenue authorities under sub-heading (1) of Heading 84.61 of the Customs Tariff. The importers claimed classification under sub-heading (2), asserting that the valves, made of copper alloy, were constructed from corrosion-resisting material, supported by manufacturer certificates.
Findings of Court:
The valves, being made of corrosion-resisting material, are correctly classifiable under sub-heading (2) of Heading 84.61 of the Customs Tariff.
Issues: Whether inner tube valves made of copper alloy and certified as corrosion-resisting are classifiable under sub-heading (1) or sub-heading (2) of Heading 84.61 of the Customs Tariff.
Ratio Decidendi: The description of metals in sub-heading (2) of Heading 84.61 is illustrative and not exhaustive. Therefore, any valve made of a material that is corrosion-resisting, regardless of whether it is specifically named in the list, falls under sub-heading (2).
Result: Appeals allowed.
Facts of the case:
Inner tube valves imported for the manufacture of tyre tubes were classified by the revenue authorities under sub-heading (1) of Heading 84.61 of the Customs Tariff. The importers claimed classification under sub-heading (2), asserting that the valves, made of copper alloy, were constructed from corrosion-resisting material, supported by manufacturer certificates.
Findings of Court:
The valves, being made of corrosion-resisting material, are correctly classifiable under sub-heading (2) of Heading 84.61 of the Customs Tariff.
Issues: Whether inner tube valves made of copper alloy and certified as corrosion-resisting are classifiable under sub-heading (1) or sub-heading (2) of Heading 84.61 of the Customs Tariff.
Ratio Decidendi: The description of metals in sub-heading (2) of Heading 84.61 is illustrative and not exhaustive. Therefore, any valve made of a material that is corrosion-resisting, regardless of whether it is specifically named in the list, falls under sub-heading (2).
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether inner tube valves are classifiable under sub-heading (1) as not elsewhere specified or sub-heading (2) as valves made of corrosion-resisting material. (Para 1 )
3. The list of corrosion-resisting metals in sub-heading (2) is illustrative and not exhaustive; copper alloy valves qualify if proven to be corrosion-resisting. (Para 2 )
4. Valves made of any corrosion-resisting material fall under sub-heading (2) of Heading 84.61, regardless of whether the specific metal is explicitly listed in the illustrative examples. (Para 2 )
5. Appeals allowed — Impugned judgments set aside — Valves classified under sub-heading (2) of Heading 84.61 of the Customs Tariff. (Para 2 )
6. Is the list of metals provided in sub-heading (2) of Heading 84.61 of the Customs Tariff exhaustive?
No, the mention of metals such as stainless steel, nickel monel, incoloy, and hastelloy is illustrative only. Any valve made of a corrosion-resisting material is classifiable under sub-heading (2). (Para 2 )
7. Can valves made of copper alloy be classified as corrosion-resisting material under the Customs Tariff?
Yes, if the material from which the valves are made is a corrosion-resisting material, they fall under sub-heading (2) of Heading 84.61, regardless of being made of copper alloy. (Para 2 )
S.C.AGRAWAL, J.
(1) THE only question that falls for consideration in these appeals is whether inner tube valves imported by the appellants in connection with the manufacture of tubes for tyres are classifiable under sub-heading (1) of Heading 84.61 of the Customs Tariff as claimed by the Revenue or under sub-heading (2) of Heading 84.61 as claimed by the appellants. Heading 84.61 of the Customs Tariff reads as under:
"TAPS, cocks, valves and similar appliances for pipes, boiler, shells, tanks, vats and the like, including pressure-reducing valves and thermostatically-controlled valves. (1) Not elsewhere specified. (2) Isolating valves, non-return valves, safety valves, pressure-reducing valves, exhaust-relief valves, thermostatically-controlled valves, solenoid-operated valves, valves made of corrosion-resisting material such as stainless steel, nickel monel, incoloy, hastelloy and other valves lined with rubber or other corrosion-resisting materials; steam traps."
(2) THE valves are made of copper alloy and the appellants have produced certificates of the manufacturers in support of their claim that the valves were made of corrosion-resisting material. In these circumstances, the authorities should have proceeded on the basis that the valves were made of corrosion-resisting material and merely because they are made of copper alloy would not disentitle the appellants from claiming that they fall under sub-heading (2). The words "such as stainless steel, nickel monel, incoloy, hastelloy" in sub-heading (2) are only illustrative of the various metals from which valves can be made but the said description is not exhaustive of the metals. If the material from which the valves are made is a corrosion-resisting material then the valves would fall under sub-heading (2) of Heading 84.61. In these circumstances, we are unable to uphold the impugned judgments and it must be held that the valves imported by the appellants, being made of corrosion-resisting material, would fall under sub-heading (2) of Heading 84.61 of the Customs Tariff. The appeals are accordingly allowed and the impugned judgments are set aside. No order as to costs.
