A

CUSTOMS AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS

(CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS)
5TH FLOOR, NDMC BUILDING, YASHWANT PLACE, SATYA MARG,
CHANAKYAPURI, NEW DELHI-110021

Email:cus-advrulings.del@gov.in]

Present

Vijay Singh Chauhan (Customs Authority for Advance Rulings, New Delhi)

The day of 5th October, 2021

Ruling No. CAAR/Del/Spraytec/20/2021
In Application No. VIlI(CAAR)/Delhi/Spraytec/22/2021

Name and address of the applicant: M/s Spraytec India Ltd.,

203-A-A, DDA Building No. 2,
District Centre, Janakpuri,
New Delhi-110058

Commissioner concerned: Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jodhpur,

Hqrs at NCR Building, Statue Circle,
C-Scheme, Jaipur-302005-Rajasthan

Present for the Applicant: Mr Priyadarshi Manish, Advocate

Present for the Department: None

Ruling
M/s Spraytec India Limited, New Delhi a company having IEC No. 0593046668 and PAN
AAECS1856R, (M/s Spraytec, in short) have filed an application dated 16.03.2020seeking
advance ruling under section 28-H of the Customs Act, 1962 before the Authority for Advance

Page 1 of11

Hstoms Athoi
F o r AdvanceRulings,
 Rulings (Customs), New Delhi (AAR, in short). The application was received in the Secretariat
of AAR, New Delhi on 19.03.2020.

2. The said application was being processed in terms of section 28-I ibid by the O/o AAR.
Consequent upon the appointment of Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR, in
short) at New Delhi and Mumbai with effect from 04.01.2021, the said application was
transferred to CAAR, New Delhi in terms of section 28-F (3) ibid and regulation 31 of CAAR
Regulations, 2021.

3. On perusal thereof, and in view of the time limit of three months for pronouncing its
advance rulings from the date of receipt of this application prescribed under section 28-I (6)
ibid, it was held that the aforesaid application received in the o/o AAR, New Delhi on
19.03.2020 had become time barred for this Authority.
4. However, on constructive interpretation of the powers vested with this Authority, vide
letter dated 28.06.2021, the applicant was advised to intimate whether they continued to be
interested in obtaining ruling of this Authority, and if so either resubmit their application in
the Form CAAR-I appended to CAAR Regulations, 2021, or simply affirm that the
declarations made in the earlier application remain valid and unchanged, at the earliest to this
Authority. It was also informed that the date of receipt of such resubmitted application or
affirmation, as the case may be, shall be taken as the date of receipt of their application under
regulation 8(4); and no separate payment of the prescribed fee under regulation 6 (6) of
CAAR Regulations, 2021 is required to be made.

5. The applicant vide letter dated 09.07.2021 affirmed that the declarations made by them
in their earlier application stand valid and unchanged, and informed that they are interested in
obtaining ruling by this Authority.

6. The concemed Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jodhpur vide letter dated

10.11.2020 has furnished comments in the matter stating, inter-alia, that the applicant had filed
three Bills of Entry in the month of September, 2018 and October, 2018 for clearance of
components of Aerosol valve under CTH 84248990; investigation and studies of the subject
product viz. aerosol valves/actuators reveal that the article in question are valves which is
fixed/incorporated onto containers (normally of tin/aluminium) and have a dip tube to dispense
the solution contained in the said containers; the solution is aerosol (mixture of
gas and liquid),
filled in the container under high pressure; the valve fixed on top opening of the container
releases the aerosol solution as and when the valve is pressed; the aerosol solution would be
continuously dispensed in the atmosphere as long as the valve is kept pressed due to the fact that
the solution has been filled under pressure; further and more importantly it was found that these
valves find their uses in many products and not in perfumes/scents/cosmetics; heading 9616 is
specifically meant for mounts and heads for scent sprays; hence the mounts and heads used in the

Page 2 of 11 ,

Uorns Delhi
 perfumes/scents would fall under 9616; aerosol valve has like in insecticides,
vast uses
pesticides, fungicides, pharmaceuticals, car paints, silicon spray, mould spray etc.; normally it is
not used as scent/perfumes in glass bottles in which aerosol solutions are not filled due to less
strength of the glass bottles; hence in scents/perfumes, normally pumps are used commonly
known as
perfumery/crimp pumps; the working of aerosol valves and the pumps is entirely
different; where on one hand the aerosol solution is continuously dispensed as long as the valve
is kept pressed, on the other hand pump would release
only a measured quantity of the solution
(scent/perfume); scents/perfumes are not containerized under pressure whereas valves are used
to dispense solutions contained under pressure; the use of aerosol valve does not find its place in
scents/perfumes, hence it should not fall under sub-heading 96161020 as mounts and heads for
scent; it should also be appreciated that CTH 8424 and 8481
provide for mechanical appliances
for projecting, dispersing or spraying
liquids/pressure reducing valves and the subject aerosol
valve, as the name suggests, is used for these very purposes (of
reducing the pressure of aerosol
solution inside the container); subject valves and actuators would
thus fall under the chapter
heading 84; only pertfumery pumps are being used in scent/perfume sprays and would thus
appear to be classifiable under 9616; the issue of these
pumps was taken up by DRI, Jaipur and
DRI has intimated that these would merit
classification under 9616; detailed opinion of the
chartered engineer was also sought, in
which, it has been opined that the goods in question viz.
aerosol valves/actuators would merit classification under
aerosol valves is closest to the
heading 8481; hence working of the
description mentioned under chapter heading 8481 and would
merit classification under 8481.

7. In accordance with the

procedure prescribed under the CAAR
hearing was scheduled on 02.08.2021. However, the Regulations, personal 2021,
applicant sought an adjournment and
accordingly, re-scheduled personal hearing in virtual mode was held on
Shri Priyadarshi Manish, Advocate 11.08.2021, wherein
represented the applicant. He explained the circumstances in
which the applicant has moved for advance
ruling in respect of on-going activity of import of
components of aerosol valves. It was, however, submitted that the
raised in the application is not question of classification
pending in the applicant's case before any officer of Customs, the
Appellate Tribunal or any Court. Shri Manish explained the details of the
product in
and the provisions of the law
guiding classification under the Customs Tariff Act. Based question
he contended that the thereon,
components of aerosol valves merit classification under the same
as aerosol valves. He submitted
that the contending classifications are heading
arguing that heading 96.16, as insisted by certain heading 84.24 and 84.81,
referred three case laws, viz. Avinka Leathers, departmental formations is not correct. He
Cipla Ltd. and Kumar Aerosols, contending that
these orders have put aerosol valves in the
category of 84.81 or 84.24, but categorically
the same falling under 96.16.
Upon conclusion of submissions by Shri rejected
referred to the proviso (b) to section 28-I Manish, the Authority
(2) of the Customs Act and asked Shri Manish
why the application in this case should not be disallowed as to
since the same classification matter had
been already decided by the Tribunals. In
this regard, the
Authority also referred to CESTAT
Page 3 of 11

Custorns AoChity For Advance

Dehi

Rulin
 decision in the of Commissioner of
case
of M08
Customs, Mumbai vs Speciality Valves, wherein parts
spray pumps were held to be classifiable under heading 96.16. Shri Manish submitted
that the case laws referred to
by him, as also the Speciality Valves order do not cover the
goods (components of aerosol valves or aerosol specific
the aforesaid valve) being imported by them, and therefore,
proviso is not attracted in the instant case. He was advised to make
submission in this regard, Since in specific written
para 26 of Annexure -1I of the
stated that "there are certain application, the applicant has
judicial decisions which put the aerosol valve in the category of
8481 or 8424 but
they categorically rejected the same
requested to submit a sample of the good in question falling
under 9616.". In addition, he was
for proper appreciation of the
the Authority. The
Authority also noted that the applicant had not product by
regarding the appropriate heading for classification of his expressly submitted his view
goods are classifiable under heading 84.24 or goods, i.e. whether in his opinion the
84.81, and advised that the same is required to be
submitted. Shri Manish requested for some time
to make additional
allowed by the Authority. submissions, which was

8. Theapplicant has accordingly made additional submissions dated 30.08.2021

physical sample of the good in question regarding the following along with
points.
(i) How the authority, shall allow the
application where the question raised in the
application is same as in a matter decided already by the Appellate Tribunal or
any Court?
(i) The Applicant should
clarify about the classification of
valve' is falling under CTH 8424 or CTH 8481. goods i.e. 'aerosol

8.1 As regards the

applicability of proviso to section 28-I (2), which prescribes that the
authority shall not allow the application where question arises in the
application, is either (a)
already pending in applicant's case before any officer of Customs, the
Appellate Tribunallor
any Court, (b) same as in a matter decided already by
Appellate Tribunal or any Court, it has
been submitted that in the
present case no such question is either pending or decided in the
case of
applicant, therefore, the present application is maintainable in the case of the
applicant. It has also been submitted that the applicant relied on certain judicial precedence,
which create the impression that the issue has
already been decided by the Tribunal in the
case of some other
importers. However, the impugmed goods are different from the goods
which are the subject matter of the
present application. In the case of Commissioner of
Customs, Bombay Vs. Cipla, the goods involved are metered valves; in the matter of
Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Avinka Leather, the goods involved are solenoid
valves; and in Kumar Aerosol Pvt. Ltd., the goods are nozzles., In the present case the
product is 'aerosol valve' which has not been discussed by any of the judgment; Therefore,
the said issue is being raised for the first time the
by applicant
and the same is neither pending
nor decided by any authority. Therefore, the application of the applicant is maintainable.

Page 4 of 11 yTEEPROI,F

Custasna AUthorisy For Advance

8.2 As regards the opinion of the applicant about the most appropriate classification for their
product, the applicant has compared three CTH, viz. 8424, 8481 and 9616; stated that 9616
had been suggested by the department on various occasion, although later on, they have
accepted the applicant's CTH i.e. 8424. He avers that between the remaining two, the
applicant put their thrust on CTH 8424 and as an alternative argument they mentioned if, the
classification of the goods which is the subject matter of the present application would be
decided under CTH 8481 it will not affect them as the rate of duty against both of them are
similar.
8.3 He has reiterated that the classification of the impugned goods would be under CTH 8424
due to following reasons:

(a) Chapter Note 2 of the Chapter 84 states that a machine or appliance which answer
to a description in one or more ofthe headings 8401 to 8424 or heading 8486 and
at the same time to a description in one or other of the heading 8425 to 8480 is to
be classified under the appropriate heading of the headings 8401 to 8424 or under
the heading 8486 as the case may be, and not under the heading 8425 to 8480.

However, the second CTH is 8481 which is not falling under heading 8425 to 8480 but the
Chapter Note 2 gives preferential effect of Chapter Heading 8424 as the said classification is
general based on reference to their function.

(b) The general content of the chapter 84 mentioned in Section XVI of HSN clarify
that the heading 8401 to 8424 cover machinery and apparatus (described generally
by reference to their function), which can be used in various branches of industry.
So, the classification is based on the function.

(c) The function of the impugned product is dispersing, spraying and projecting,
which categorically puts the goods in CTH 8424

(d) Similarly, the sub-heading Notes 3 of Chapter 84 clarify that for the purpose of
sub-heading 8481.20, the expression "valves for oleohydraulic or pneumatic
transmission" means valves which are used specifically in the transmission of
"fluid power" in a hydraulic or pneumatic system, where the energy source is
supplied in the form of pressurized fluids (liquid or gas). However, in the present
case, the applicant's product is not dealing with transmission of fluid power ina
hydraulic or pneumatic system; and therefore, would not be falling under 8481.

(e) In reference to the aforesaid, the goods of the applicant would fall under CTH 8424.

9. Having completed the process of seeking comments of the concerned Commissioner of

Customs, sharing the same with the applicant, receiving clarification from DRI, Jaipur

Page 5 of 11

CustNSom Authoriy ro Delit

UIy For Advance Ru
 reiterating the submission of the applicant that no show cause notice has been issued to M/s
Spraytec India Lid., completing the personal hearing and obtaining additional submissions,
clarifying inter alia the queries raised during the personal hearing, I now proceed to examine the
application in two stages; namely admissibility of the application and thereafter, the question of
classification posed for ruling.

10. It is observed that the instant application relates to on-going activity of import of
aerosol valves, which is included in the portfolio of activities being carried out by the
applicant for last several years. In view of lack of clarity regarding the appropriate
classification of the goods being imported by them, the question posed for ruling is regarding
the correct classification of the "aerosol valves", with the applicant contending that the most
appropriate classification is sub-heading 8424 89 90, with possibility of it being classified
under heading 8481, but definitely not under 9616, as has sometimes been contended by the
department but not pressed.
10.1 I find that in the instant case of on-going activity, a ruling by this Authority shall
impart certainty to the issue of appropriate classification, provided that the jurisdiction of this
Authority is not ousted by proviso to section 28-I (2) of the Customs Act.

10.2 I find that proviso one is not applicable in the instant case on the ground that it has
been so claimed by the applicant and confirmed by the concerned Commissioner of Customs
and DRI, Regional Unit, Jaipur.

10.3 The second proviso prescribes that this Authority shall not allow an application,
where the question raised in the application is "same as in a matter decided already by the
Appellate Tribunal or any court". As mentioned above, in the application, the applicant had,
cited reference to three CESTAT cases, claiming that certain judicial decisions put the aerosol
valve in category of 8481 or 8424. However, in their additional submission, they have
clarified that the impugned goods are different from those which were subject matter of the
said three Tribunal decisions.

10.4 In this regard, 1 find that the goods covered in the Commissioner of Customs,
vs Cipla Ltd. [1998(102) E.L.T. 739 (Tribunal)] were "metered valves which ensures a single
dose to be delivered on pressure being applied irrespective of the duration of the application
pressure", which were held to be classifiable under heading 84.81. In the Commissioner of
Customs, Mumbai vs. Avinka Leathers [2004 (168) E.L.T. 52 (Tri.-Mumbai)] the goods were
"solenoid valve fitted with aerosol valve and spray nozzle and a populated PCB connected to
along with electric switch and battery lead" and held to be classifiable under heading 84.24. n
case of M/s Kumar Aerosols Pvt. Ltd. vs Collector of Customs, New Delhi [1997 (95)
E.L.T. 201 (Tribunal)], it was held that "component parts of aerosol valves (nozzles)"
classifiable under heading 84.81 are excluded from the purview of heading 98.06. In the case
Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai vs Speciality Valves cited by the department, the goods

Page 6 of 11 ,

tori Fcr Atvanc

 covered were "parts of M08 spray pumps" where held classifiable under heading 96.16.
Therefore, I hold that the classification of impugned goods described in the application as
aerosol valve", variously deseribed as aerosol valve with actuator/ components of aerosol
valves, et., in the bills of entry enclosed with the application and as discussed in subsequent
para, has not been decided already by the Appellate Tribunal or any court.

10.5 In view of the above, I allow the application and proceed to discuss the question
posed for ruling.

11 As regards the product description, the applicant has also stated that:

(a) in the product literature, Chinese supplier has clarified that these valves are non-return
valve placed on aerosol container depending on inside contents of container. These are
general spray purpose valves and applied at many such places and not linked to specific
product.

(b) The applicant described the parts and operation of Aerosol Valve, as follows:

Valve
The opening where the producd comes out. A wide variety of
valves control how much of fhe product comes out, how fast, and
in what drecion.

Actuatorf
The spray burtton which enables a user fo acivate the aeruso
delivery system. Actuators are designed fo be easyo use and to
control the applicetion of the product

Valve Cup
Metal cup at top af the container with sealing materiels attached
hat holds al he valve componerts together.

Stem
The connection between the actuator and the spring

Stem Gasket
The key to an aerosod can. The gasket seais the opening around
the valve stem, keepng ihe can airlight

Sping
Maintains pressure on the gasket which seals the can. Pressing
down on the actuator releases that presure, opening the seal

Housing
The cylinder which holds the spring arnd connects the dip tube to
the valve assembly.

Dip TubeB
A hollow tube which extends from the valve to the bottom of the
can, allawing the product under pressure lo be pushed out
through the vslve.

The applicant has further explained that the product is a mechanical appliance totally
(c)
hand operated, which causes to provide the space through which pressurized gas comes
out from the can and after coming out due to low pressure turns into the liquid and

spraying of liquid takes place; the product in question is being manufactured without

Page 7 of 11

For Advence RUs

 reducing valve,
the aerosol valves are pressure
said product;
knowing end use of the for glass or metal
and are used
of the container manufactured
which are mounted on top cover scent,

under pressure; the Chapter

Heading 96166
for spraying liquid pack and the head piece for
the mount for toiletry spray
brilliantine and similar toiletry spray, Description and
note 96.16 of Harmonized Commodity
toilet spray; the explanatory mechanism and a
head (with its spray) forming
Coding Systems defines a mount as
device, which disperse
in textile knit) or a piston
pneumatic pressure valve (sometime is considered as a
the definition prescribed in the Explanatory Note
liquid spray form;
in
is not falling under
which is totally different from a valve; the impugned product
pump which has been
from the same, it covers the product
category of CTH 9616; apart
it could not cover the generic goods
speciallyprescribed for scent and toiletry spray, but
and due to the same it should not fall under CTH 9616.

aerosol spray as below:

(d) The applicant has described the operation of the

Pressure on the actuatormoves the stem down.

osol This breaks the seal between the gasket and the
spray stem.
The stem is exposed to the product/ propellant
valve
gas in the container. (i.e. the valve is open)
Jnder
the
pressure Pressure inside the container pushes
product through the valve to the outside of the
tiquid container.
and
By releasing the actuator, the spring returns
gas
$olution
the stem orifice to the sealed position (i.e.
the

valve is closed)

HYanAipricI

representative was requested to submit a

11.1 During the Personal hearing, the applicant's the Authority.
for proper appreciation of the product by
sample of the good in question representative, the
were forwarded by the applicant's
Accordingly, representative samples
below:
the applicant's representative) is as
image of such sample (supplied by

Page 8 of 11

ority For Advancahulings

 various
components of
As stated in para 11
the applicant has described
(6), above,
11.2 and
valve cup, stem, stem gasket, spring, housing
the goods in question as, valve, actuator,
of entry filed by them wherein
tube. Moreover, applicant has furnished copies of few bills
dip of aerosol valve (actuator,
declared as aerosol valve, components
items under import had been been
the goods (sample of which has
etc. In view of the forgoing, it is observed that
diptube) of which ruling on
of the applicant), in respect
supplied by the authorized representative valve. Accordingly, for the impugned
not a simple or mere
classification has been sought, is
not appear appropriate.
undertariff heading 8481 does
product, classification
similar toilet
refers inter-alia to, "Scent sprays and
11.3 As regards heading 9616, it spray as a
that Collins dictionary defines
scent
and heads therefore". I find
sprays, and
mounts bottle
aerosol
comes in
that the
perfume spray). Having gone through
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/scent-

viewed the sample provided to this office, I

the applicant and
product description given by mechanism, capable spraying of
is component of spray
a
find that the product in question that goods in
bottle/container. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion
fluid (aerosol) from a
Scent/perfume
mounted on bottle/can of
Scent spray for delivery of
question can also be are used as
when the goods in question
containerized under pressure. Thus,
which can be and 6 of the
then in the light of Rule 1
heads for dispersing or spraying of Scent,
mounts and classifiable under
the Interpretation of Import Tariff, these would be
General Rules for mentioned
I note that the applicant has
9616. referred to the said possibility,
Having
heading at many such places
and not linked
to
valves and applied
that "these are general spray purpose Commissioner of Customs has
concurred with
concerned
also find that the
specific product." I question has "vast
like in insecticides,
uses
noting that the product in
the said contention, mould spray etc." Therefore,
pharmaceuticals, car paints, silicon spray,
pesticides, fungicides, use do not merit
classification
goods with general purpose
in the instant case, the impugned
which has very precise scope.
under heading 96.16,

mechanical appliances (whether or not

8424 covers, inter-alia,
The third heading
11.4
liquids or powders. The features of the
dispersing or spraying
hand operated) for projecting,

Page 9 of 11

, ne
 inasmuch as these
goods in question consistent with the scope of the said heading 8424,
are
meant for spraying liquids (aerosols).
are components of hand operated mechanical appliances
Rule I and
Therefore, impugned goods merit classification under heading 8424 in the light of
under
6 of the General Rules for the Interpretation of Import Tariff; and specifically
sub-heading 8424 89 90.

11.5 Irule accordingly.

Date: 05.10.2021
U&nonlnan
(Vijay Singh Chauhan)
Customs Authority for Advance Rulings, New Delhi

Page 10 of 11