Case Details: Swami Overseas Versus Commr. of Customs (Port), Kolkata (2025) 34 Centax 64 (Tri.-Cal)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- S/Shri R. Muralidhar, Member (J) & Rajeev Tandon, Member (T)
- Shri S.C. Ratho, Consultant, for the Appellant
- Shri Tariq Suliaman, Authorized Representative, for the Respondent
Facts of the Case
The appellant-importers imported bed sheets made of 100% polyester, each measuring approximately 14 ft x 7 ft, which corresponded to a normal double bed sheet size. The sheets were loosely stitched with remaining sides left open, allowing them to be separated and sold individually. The assessee submitted that the goods should be classified under Heading 6304 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as bed sheets. The Revenue contended that the goods were woven polyester fabric and should be classified under Heading 5407 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, relying on Note 7(d) to Section XI of HSN. Test reports from the Mumbai Textile Committee and the Ahmedabad Textile Industry’s Research Association (ATIRA) were drawn, and the proprietor of the importing firm confirmed that the sheets were intended to be sold as bed sheets and any additional stitching, if required, was to be done by traders themselves. The matter was accordingly placed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai.
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that the imported polyester bed sheets were correctly classifiable under Heading 6304 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Tribunal observed that despite the corners and end portions being unhemmed, the goods were intended for sale as bed sheets, and the overall nature and size confirmed this usage. The Tribunal noted that the test reports relied upon by Revenue were inconclusive, with the Mumbai Textile Committee failing to provide eight-digit CTH classification and ATIRA not establishing that the goods fell under Heading 5407. The CESTAT further held that Note 7(b) to Section XI of HSN applied given the actual usage of the goods. Consequently, the imported goods were rightly classified under Heading 6304, affirming that classification should follow the common parlance and intended market usage of imported items.
List of Cases Cited
- C.F. Inc. v. Commissioner — (2024) 22 Centax 318 (Tri. – Cal) — Relied on [Paras 5, 13, 14, 15]
- Collector v. Binny Ltd. — 2003 (158) E.L.T. 835 (Tribunal) — Relied on [Paras 12, 15]
- Commissioner v. Silpha Finvest P. Ltd. — (2025) 32 Centax 342 (Tri.-Cal) — Referred [Para 6]
