‘Twaron Para-Aramid Pulp’ is Textile Flock under Customs Tariff: CESTAT Directs Importer to Pay Differential Duty [Read Order]

The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at New Delhi ruled that ‘Twaron Para-Aramid Pulp’ imported into India is correctly classifiable as textile flock under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 5601 30 00 and not under CTI 5601 22 00; the importer was accordingly directed to pay the differential duty along with applicable interest.

The case arose after the Customs authorities at ICD, Patparganj, New Delhi examined consignments of Twaron Para-Aramid Pulp imported by M/s Leakless Gasket India Pvt. Ltd. during the period between 2018-19. The product, described by the importer as “industrial man-made fibre pulp”, was a yellowish, cotton-like substance stored in polyethylene bags.

On physical verification, officers observed that the material consisted of fibrillated fibres shorter than 5 mm. Based on laboratory testing and manufacturer literature, the Department concluded that the goods fell under “textile flock and dust and mill neps” (CTI 5601 30 00), rather than “wadding of man-made fibres” (CTI 5601 22 00) as declared by the importer.

Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here

On the direction from Customs, the importer paid the differential duty arising from the reclassification to obtain clearance of the goods.

Subsequently, the Department formed the opinion that the earlier misclassification had rendered the initial declarations invalid and proposed confiscation of the goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. A show cause notice (SCN) was issued alleging misdeclaration and short-payment of duty.

The adjudicating authority confirmed the classification under CTI 5601 30 00 and demanded ₹2.15 crore in differential duty, interest and equal penalty; the order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal.

Dr. Prabhat Kumar and Pralabh Mathur appeared for the appellant and contended that the product was a specialized industrial raw material for gasket sheet production and not a textile flock. It was submitted that classification should depend on function and end use, not fibre length alone.

Meanwhile, Mukesh Kumar Shukla appeared as the Authorized Representative for the Department and argued that the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) Explanatory Notes defined ‘textile flock’ specifically as “fibres of length not exceeding 5 mm”, which matched the specifications of the subject-matter imported goods.

Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here

The Bench comprising Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Member Technical) noted that nothing in the literature of the product produced by the appellant shows that the imported goods are ‘wadding‘ and that it was sold as ‘pulp‘ with the material being intended for use as textile pulp itself.

Furthermore, the test report from the supplier confirmed the fibre length to be less than 5 mm, thus the goods squarely fall under CTI 5601 30 00 (textile flock and dust and mill neps) and not under CTI 5601 22 00 (as wadding of man-made fibres).

Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed this part of the appeal and affirmed the duty demand raised within the normal period of limitation. The importer was accordingly directed to discharge the confirmed duty and interest liability.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates