Full Judgment
2. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellants had imported copper tubes (ASTMB-68 DHP) specially designed for use in refrigeration industries which was classifiable according to them under Heading 84.15 and not under Heading 74.07/08(1).
3. The Department has classified them under the latter heading but according to the appellants this heading applies to only general purpose copper tubes and pipes and not to the items in question which are parts of refrigerators and refrigerating equipment falling under Heading 84.15. Similarly the additional duty is required to be levied under Tariff Item 29A(3) and not under 26A(3). Further they were also entitled for exemption under Customs Notification No. 45/83. Hence, the appellants had filed a refund claim which had been rejected by the Assistant Collector without granting them a personal hearing.
4. Necessary documentary evidence in the form of catalogue and other relevant details were furnished before the Collector (Appeals) but he has also dismissed their petition without properly understanding the various facts and without applying the interpretative rules.
5. It was also their contention that the copper tubes imported by them had specific properties for the purpose of use in refrigeration industry; hence they should be classified under [Heading] 84.15 (1).
6. Ld. DR stated that the imported copper tubes were originally assessed under Heading 74.07/08(1) read with Notification No. 252/82 read with CET 29A(3) at the time of filing Into Bond Bill of Entry.
Subsequently clearances were affected under Ex-Bond Bill of Entry as per the original assessment. The importers had not appealed against the original assessment and in the clearance made at the time of Ex-bond clearances, no excess payment was involved.
7. Further the catalogue produced before the authorities below showed that the goods in question were also used in various household items like gas lines, heater lines etc. and in various industrial units such as pulp and paper lines, steam and waterlines etc. In view of such multifarious uses and their being not exclusively meant for use in refrigeration equipments their refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector and the Assistant Collector's order was confirmed by the Collector (Appeals).
8. The ld. Collector (Appeals) has also noted that the items have been imported in the form of coils and in straight lengths and the goods in their present form cannot be used in refrigeration machines. They have to be further cut and fabricated. The catalogue of the goods as well as the invoice description makes this point crystal clear. Hence, the goods cannot be classified under Tariff Item 84.15(1) and the correct classification of the impugned goods would only be CTH 74.07/08(1) read with GET 26A.9. The ld. DR further stated that the appellants have not produced any copy of the catalogue or the invoices referred to by the ld. Collector (Appeals) in his order and there is nothing to show that there was any error in his observations and findings in this regard.
10 I have considered the above submissions. I find that the ld. DR's submissions have strong force. The observations and findings of the ld.Collector (Appeals) and the Assistant Collector are based on the catalogue and invoices produced before them. The Assistant Collector has extensively quoted as follows to show that the items imported had multifarious uses :- "5 ... ASTM B catalogue (xerox copy of which is filed by the assessee) shows the typical uses of the tubes under B 68 type are as follows: B1 Typical uses : Household : gas lines, heater lines and units, oil-burner tubes, plumbing pipe and tube, refrigerators; industrial : condenser, evaporator and heat-exchanger tubes, dairy tubes, distiller tubes, pulp and paper lines, steam and water lines, brewery tubes; transportation : air, gasoline, hydraulic and oil lines, oil coolers; miscellaneous : rotating bands, gage lines." This indicates that the findings of the ld. Assistant Collector and the ld. Collector (Appeals) are correct to the extent of holding that the items in question has variety of uses and was not exclusively made for refrigeration equipment as claimed by them.
11. The appellant has not filed any other material in support of his contention which therefore remains unsubstantiated.
12. The appeal is therefore rejected as such, as already announced in the open court.