CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Order Classifying Kitchen And Household Accessories As Furniture Parts

The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Delhi has set aside an order classifying imported kitchen and wardrobe storage products as furniture parts and held that they are classifiable as kitchen and household articles or furniture fittings under Chapters 73 and 83 of the Customs Tariff.

A bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed the appeal filed by Inox Decor Pvt. Ltd. against an order of the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, which had classified the imported goods as furniture parts.

The dispute concerned imported products including bottle racks, plate racks with drip trays, carousel units, magic corner baskets, cutlery baskets, tie racks, trouser racks, shoe racks, drawer systems and other kitchen and wardrobe accessories.

The importer classified the goods as kitchen and household articles or furniture fittings, while the customs department contended that they should be treated as furniture parts.

The Tribunal observed that the goods under consideration were essentially baskets, hinges and shelves having distinct identities and individual functions. It held that the Principal Commissioner had erred in treating them as parts of unit furniture, shelf furniture, chests and cupboards.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant had been importing the goods for many years under those classifications without any dispute regarding classification. It also noted that objections were raised after the duty rate applicable to goods falling under Heading 9403 was increased from 10% to 20% with effect from February 2018.

Referring to its earlier decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-I v. Crystal Interior Products, the Tribunal noted that similar kitchen and household articles had previously been held to fall under Chapter 73 rather than the chapter covering furniture and parts thereof.

The Bench held that the goods were more specifically covered by tariff entries dealing with kitchen and household articles and furniture fittings than by the broader entry covering furniture and its parts.

It also observed that the explanatory notes to Heading 94.03 cover furniture and parts thereof that are not covered under earlier tariff headings. The Tribunal held that the products imported by Inox Decor were specifically covered under other tariff entries.

Holding that the Commissioner's classification of the products as furniture parts could not be sustained, the Tribunal set aside the order and allowed the appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Kumar, Advocate

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Singh, Authorized Representative