Anamed Instruments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collr. of Cus. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....goods are eligible for lower rate of duty at 40% + nil + 15% (cvd). the assistant collector has only dealt with valve and has passed a single line order which is extracted in the impugned order is as follows: "since the valve is a specific item in the tariff, the classification has been done correctly in the bill of entry. therefore, refund claim is rejected being inadmissible." 3. before the collector, the appellants had produced the catalogue and the details of the machine and had also explained its function.however, the collector has rejected the same. he has noted that there is no doubt that the bill of entry in this case described the imported goods namely, 'constametric iii pump solvent delivery pump with dual reciprocating saphire pistons, valve of scientific instruments hplc system'. however, he has noted that the imported goods were components for the said system was not supported by the description of the goods in the invoice. he has further noted that the photocopy of the catalogue furnished by the appellants showed that the dynamic gradient mixer is said to be 'accessory module' which disproved the appellants claim.4. shri v.s. rajan, managing director of the.....

Judgment:

1. This appeal arises from the order dated 21-1-1991/ passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, who has confirmed the rejection of the refund claim passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs. The appellants had imported components for scientific instruments of HPLC system. The components comprises of: 1. Constametric III pump solvent delivery system with dual reciprocating saphire pistons.

2. They claimed that these cannot be assessed on merits and that they are specific and identifiable parts of HPLC and that they cannot be used anywhere and hence they are required to be classified under heading 9801 and 90.27.20 read with Notification No. 124/87 and Notification No. 87/88 under which the goods are eligible for lower rate of duty at 40% + nil + 15% (CVD). The Assistant Collector has only dealt with valve and has passed a single line order which is extracted in the impugned order is as follows: "Since the valve is a specific item in the tariff, the classification has been done correctly in the bill of entry.

Therefore, refund claim is rejected being inadmissible." 3. Before the Collector, the appellants had produced the catalogue and the details of the machine and had also explained its function.

However, the Collector has rejected the same. He has noted that there is no doubt that the Bill of Entry in this case described the imported goods namely, 'Constametric III Pump Solvent Delivery Pump with dual reciprocating saphire pistons, valve of scientific instruments HPLC System'. However, he has noted that the imported goods were components for the said system was not supported by the description of the goods in the invoice. He has further noted that the photocopy of the catalogue furnished by the appellants showed that the Dynamic Gradient Mixer is said to be 'accessory module' which disproved the appellants claim.

4. Shri V.S. Rajan, Managing Director of the appellants' company submitted that the order is not a speaking order and the lower authorities have not dealt with all the component parts pertaining to the goods in question. It is his contention that the items are not a general valve and the function is not that of a valve as understood by the lower authorities. They are injectors and not valves, nor controlling valves. The items are not general purpose items but specifically designed to reflect the flow. The flow is done by the pump. He explained that the item is injector spectrum and not pump itself as understood by the lower authorities. It is his contention that the item is a part of HPCL system and are not excluded from the category shown in the Explanatory Notes to HSN in Chapter heading 84.81. He also submitted that it is not a sucking of discharge valve as mentioned in heading 84.81. As regard the other items also he explained that the Collector had mistaken the items to be accessories without even looking into the functioning of the items as an essential parts of HPLC. He also submitted that there is no discussion of the examination of the scientific material placed before him.

5. The Learned DR pointed out that the item is a valve and therefore, cannot be classified as an instrument, as valves are separately classifiable.

6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides.

On perusal of the impugned order, it is very clear that both the order suffers from application of mind and there is no discussion and appreciation of the technical evidence produced by the appellants. The lower authorities have also not considered the supplier's letters, catalogue and the details of the functioning of the instruments. The lower authorities have also not considered the letter dated 2-5-1988 of Small Industries Service Institute, Udyog Mantralaya, Bombay which certifies the various components of high performance liquid chromatographic HPLC. The certificate issued by Radiation Plant for Sterilization of Medical Products has also not been considered. In view of the impugned orders have not a speaking orders and the material having not been considered in the light of submissions made by them, it is but proper that the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for de novo consideration. The appellants shall be grant an opportunity of hearing and also consider the evidence and such other evidence that will be produced by the appellants before the authorities. Thus, the appeal is allowed by remand to the original authorities.