1. The above appeals relate to the classification of "Tool bit blanks" manufactured by the appellants herein and are hence taken up and disposed of by this common order.
2. The appellants purchase round bars and square bars of special steels (Alloy steels), subject them to heat treatment, polish and clean them and then cut them to specific sizes. The customers of the appellants carry out processes such as grinding, edge sharpening, grooving etc.
after which they acquire working edges and working sides and these are then used on machines and lathes for cutting purposes. The assessees claimed classification of the product under Heading 72.09 up to 1-3-1988 as 'bars (including flats) and Rods (including wire rods) of iron and steel, rolled, forged, extruded, formed, finished, whether in straight lengths or in coils...', and under Heading 72.28 as 'Other bars and rods of other alloy steel...' or alternatively under Heading 72.24 as 'Semi-finished products of other alloy steel after 1-3-1988'; the Departmental authorities at Bombay have classified the goods under Heading 8202.10 as interchangeable tools for hand tools while the authorities at Gujarat have classified them under Heading 7308.90 as "other articles of iron and steel" up to 1-3-1988 and under Heading 7326.90 after 1-3-1988.
3. We have heard Shri A.M. Setalvad, learned Sr. Counsel appearing along with Shri D.B. Shroff, learned Advocate and Shri M. Jayaraman, learned DR and carefully considered their submissions.
4. We find that Chapter Note 1 of Chapter 84 provides that apart from blow lamps, portable forges, grinding wheels with frameworks, manicure, pedicure sets and goods of Heading 8204. This Chapter covers only goods with a flat working edge, working surface or other working parts of: The tool bit blanks manufactured and cleared by the appellants admittedly do not have any flat working edges or working surfaces or other working parts. They are only pieces of metal in the shape of squares and rounds on which certain processes may be carried out but the further processes such as grinding, edge sharpening, grooving etc., which are essential for acquiring the characteristic of working edge or a working surface are carried out only by the customers of the appellants. Thus at the stage of manufacture and clearance from the appellants factory, the goods do not have any blades or working surfaces. [In the appellants' own case, for the period pertaining to the Central Excise Tariff of 1975, the Tribunal has held that the tool bit blanks have not attained the shape or character of the bits and, therefore, were not classifiable under Tariff Item 51A(iii) but fell for classification under Tariff Item 68. This order is reported in 1987 (30) E.L.T. 519]. Hence, classification under Heading 8202 is ruled out.
5. The reliance placed by the lower authorities on Rule 2(a) of the Rules of Interpretation of the Tariff, namely : "Any reference in a heading to goods shall be taken to include a reference to these - goods incomplete or unfinished, provided - that the incomplete or unfinished goods have the essential character of the complete or finished goods. It shall also be taken to include a reference to those goods complete or finished (or falling to be classified as complete or finished by virtue of this rule) removed unassembled or disassembled", is misplaced inasmuch as the items which are incomplete and unfinished have not acquired the essential character of the complete or finished goods i.e. to say they have not acquired the working edge or working surface. Thus classification under Chapter 82 as tools is ruled out.
6. What then is the correct classification of the goods? The plea of the appellant that even after the bars and rods are subjected to processes in their hands, they remained bars and rods of alloy steel, cannot be accepted the bars and rods have acquired a different character viz. that of tool bit blank which can be considered as the article of iron and steel and hence classification under Heading 7308.90 as other articles of iron and steel for the period up to 1-3-1988 would be more appropriate than Heading 72.09. After 1-3-1988, the tariff provides for a more specific entry for the disputed items viz. Heading 7224.00 which covers semi-finished products of other alloy steel. We have already held that the goods in question are in the nature of semi-finished products. This Heading is more appropriate than the Heading 7326.90 where the Department has sought to classify the goods after 1-3-1988.
7. In the result, we hold that the tool bit blanks would fall for classification under Heading 7308.90 up to 1-3-1988 and under Heading 7224.00 subsequent to 1-3-1988. Accordingly, the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. E/3554/87-B is set aside and this appeal allowed, while the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. E/4553/94-B is modified to the extent indicated above - that is, the impugned order of classification under 7308.90 for the period up to 1-3-1988 is confirmed and classification under Heading 7326.90 for the subsequent period is set aside. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
With due respects to Hon'ble Member (Judicial), my views and orders in the matter are as follows.
8. I observe that as per the Machinery's Handbook Revised 21st Edition by Erik Oberg, Franklin D. Jones and Holbrook L. Horton, Chapter on 'Cutting Tools', the Blank, Tool Bit and Tool-bit Blank read as follows :- "Blank. A blank is an unground piece of cutting-tool material from which a brazed tool is made.
Tool Bit. A tool bit is a relatively small cutting tool that is clamped in a holder in such a way that it can readily be removed and replaced. It is intended primarily to be reground when dull and non indexed.
Tool-bit Blank. The tool-bit blank is an unground piece of cutting tool material from which a tool bit can be made by grinding. It is available in standard sizes and sliapes." 9. The item in question before us is 'Tool-bit Blank'. Therefore, it is obviously something which has crossed the stage of bar but not yet reached the stage of a tool bit. However, it is available in standard sizes and shapes.Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. S.S. Miranda Ltd. reported in 1987 (30) E.L.T. 519 (Tribunal) that such blanks require further processing in the nature of sharpening, edging etc. before they could be considered as tool bits and has therefore, classified the blanks under Tariff Item 68 and the bits under Tariff Item 51A(iii). Insofar as the new tariff is concerned it is required to be seen whether they are classifiable under Chapter 72 Iron and Steel or Chapter 73 Articles of Iron or Steel or Chapter 82 Tools, Implements, Cutlery, Spoons and Forks, of Base Metal; Parts thereof of Base Metal.
11. When we read headings of Chapter 72 in the light of Chapter Note (1) as it stood before 1-3-1988 and also as it stood after 1-3-1988, it is noticed that even after 1-3-1988 the definition of semi-finished product covered by this chapter includes blanks for angle, shape, sections only and not other type of blanks.
12. Hence, none of the headings of Chapter 72 is appropriate and therefore, the items cannot be classified under this chapter.
13. Insofar as Chapter Heading 73 is concerned, it covers articles of iron and steel and it is noteworthy that notes of Chapter 72 apply to the products falling under this chapter shall as far as may be, applied also to this chapter in terms of Note (1).
14. Under this chapter, Heading No. 73.26 covers other articles of iron and steel including products which are forged and stamped but not further worked as well but it is noteworthy that it is a residuary entry and will be attracted only if the article was of a type classifiable under this chapter but not covered by any of the preceding headings. The nature and type of the articles covered under this chapter are very different from that of tools and blanks and once again because of Chapter Note (1) only blanks for angles, shapes and sections only would be classifiable under Heading 73.26.
15. Further there is no doubt or dispute that these are admittedly blanks for certain type of tools and blanks as we have seen are articles which have travelled beyond the stage of ordinary iron and steel materials or identifiable with articles falling under any of the headings of Chapter 72 or 73 but had not yet acquired all the characteristics of a tool bit. However, on the analogy of the definition of the semi-finished products they could be considered as unfinished/semi-finished tool bits classifiable in terms of Rule of Interpretation No. 2(a) which refers to incomplete or unfinished goods having the essential character of complete or finished goods and inter alia covers "blanks" [as per 2(a) Clause (ii) CCCN].
16. It is also noteworthy that a tool bit blank for one type of tool is bound to differ from that type of blank of other type of tool because it has to be so made or made ready as to acquire in due course the full features of a particular type of tool bit and all that remains for reaching that stage is merely grinding, edging or some similar processes. In other words, it must have acquired by then the required degree of strength and other essential characteristics, shape(s), surface(s) or edge(s) as the case may be which could make it identifiable as blank for a particular type of tool and by mere application of abovesaid processes, it would become fullfledged tool of a particular design, shape or type; and we have seen blanks are available in standard shapes and sizes hence, such blanks will have to be classified under a chapter covering such tools namely Chapter 82 but the exact sub-heading would depend upon the fact of being identified as a blank of a particular type of tool. In view of this position, I hold that items are classifiable under Chapter 82 but as the full information required for particular sub-heading is not available and the above aspects have not been taken into consideration by the authorities although they were relevant, the impugned order is required to be set aside and the matter is required to be examined de novo in the light of the above observations and the law. I, therefore, set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter for de novo adjudication after giving the appellants an opportunity of being heard in the matter and producing such technical or other relevant documents as may be necessary for determining the sub-classification or notification if any applicable.
In view of difference of opinion between Hon'ble Member (J) and the Vice President, the matter is submitted to Hon'ble President for reference to a third Member on the following point :- 1. Whether the tool bit blanks are classifiable under 7308.90 for the period up to 1-3-1988 and 8326.90 during the subsequent period as proposed by Hon'ble Member (J).
2. They are classifiable under Chapter 82 and the matter is required to be remanded for de novo consideration for determining the exact sub- headings and consequential determination of the effective rate of duty applicable.
17. The question had been framed at page 9 of the order. It has been pointed out by the Learned Sr. Advocate that there has been a typographical error in the first question inasmuch as the tool bit blanks classifiable under heading 7308.90 of the period up to 1-3-1988 has been correctly typed in question number 1, while for heading 7224.00, error in typing has occurred, inasmuch as it has been shown as heading 8326.90. It is an obvious error as can be seen from the order of the Member (J), which has clearly held that these tools bits blanks are for the period after 1-3-1988; and shall be classifiable only vinder Heading 7224.00 as per page 4 of her order. Therefore, the learned Sr. Advocate, at the outset, submits that the controversy in the present case between the two members in the form of difference of opinion is pertaining to Chapter Heading 7308.90 prior to 1-3-1988 and 7224.00 after 1-3-1988 in terms of the order proposed by learned Member (J) or under Chapter 82 and for determining sub-headings, matter is to be redetermined in terms of the order proposed by the learned Vice President. The learned Sr. Advocate took me through the entire records of the case including the evidence placed by the party to support their plea. It is his submission that they had taken the plea that the classification of this tool bit blanks as described in the classification list prior to 1-3-1988 was 7209, however, it has been determined by the learned Member (J) under Heading 7308.90. It is his submission that as the Third Member is required to adjudicate only with regard to the points raised by them, he is not in a position to press his arguments on this heading, which was claimed, prior to 1-3-1988.
18. As regards the period after 1-3-1988, claim made by the party was under Heading 7228 or in the alternative under Heading 7224. As the Member (J) has accepted their alternative contention under Heading 7224, they cannot press for their arguments under Heading 7228, now which they reserve to do at appropriate stage. At the outset, the learned Sr. Advocate pointed out from the orders, the discrepancies arising thereunder inasmuch as that the learned Member (J) has categorically held that Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules cannot be applied in the present case, while in the order of the learned Vice President, he has held otherwise. The learned Sr. Advocate points out that the learned Vice President has not correctly understood the terms of Chapter (Note) 1 to Chapter 82 which clearly indicates that the Chapter 82 covers "only goods with a blade, working edge, working surface or other working part of". This Chapter Note 1 is very categorical to include only goods which has assumed a shape in the form of blade or a working edge or a working surface and it is nobody's case that it has assumed any of these characteristics. The department has accepted the fact that the goods are mere blanks. Therefore, in terms of Chapter Note 1 of Chapter 82 itself, the item does not come within the ambit of Chapter 82. It is his further contention that Note 2(a) cannot be pressed into service as the goods have not assumed any of the characteristics of final product as it has to admittedly undergo several processes and in this regard the evidence of the manufacturers/users of the tools have been produced which is on record, which has been pointed out to me. He also brought to my notice several judgments on the point of classification earlier to the introduction of the new tariff in their own case, wherein the Tribunal has categorically held that the item in question tool bit blanks cannot be considered as 'tools' under Tariff Item 51A of the erstwhile tariff but to be classified under Tariff Item 68. It is his contention that the characteristics of the goods have not changed on the introduction of the tariff heading and in this regard he pressed into service the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India rendered in the case of Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, as reported in 1991 (51) E.L.T. 165, wherein, the Apex Court has held that the change in tariff does not change the nature of goods. The learned Sr. Advocate further pointed out to HSN Explanatory Notes at page 1008 in respect of Chapter 72.28 dealing with "other bars and rods of other alloy steels etc." particularly to the reading of the notes under (B) hollow drill bars and rods wherein it has been clearly stipulated that the steel may be cut into short pieces for manufacture of drill bits which fall under 82.07. It is his contention that although there is no reference in the other Chapter headings of Chapter 72 of the Explanatory Notes, but, it is still significant insofar as the hollow drill bars and rods are concerned as it can be applied to even to rods cut to size which continue to fall under Chapter Heading 72.28.
Therefore, he submits that it is very clear that the goods have not assumed any shape nor assumed any characteristics and they cannot be brought within the ambit of Chapter 82 to be treated as "tools", when in fact admittedly, it has not acquired any characteristics of a "tool".
19. On the other hand the learned DR forcibly argued the case and submits that the item has acquired a shape of the tool itself. The party themselves have declared in their classification list as 'tool bit blanks'. There is a clear understanding in the commercial sense that the item will be utilised only as a 'tool'. Therefore, the lower authorities have rightly pressed the Interpretative Rule 2(a) to classify the item under Chapter Heading 82. The learned DR points out that there are two appeals presently one arising from Bombay Collectorate, who have pressed into force the Interpretative Rule 2(a) to classify the item under Chapter 82, while the other arising from Vadodara Collectorate does not pressed into force this Interpretative Rule and they have accepted the item to fall under Chapter 73. However, it is only the sub-headings which are under dispute. The learned DR submits that in view of the Member (J) having arrived at a particular sub-heading under Chapter 73, he will not be in a position to press the point of the department pertaining to sub-heading urged by the Vadodara Collectorate. It is his contention that although there is no cross appeal filed by the department against the Vadodara Collectorate's appeal, yet he has been advised to press for Chapter 82 in terms of classification adopted by the Bombay Collectorate. Therefore, he submits that the order proposed by the learned Vice President should be accepted.
20. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and have perused the evidence on record as well as the citations pressed before me. Before proceeding to examine the various judgments on the point prior to the introduction of the new tariff, it is necessary to examine the contentions raised by the party in this matter and the evidence pressed by them. The lower authorities especially the Assistant Collector has noted in detail the contentions raised by the party. In their letter dated 20th May, 1996, at page 67 of the paper book in Appeal No. E/3554/87-B arising against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, the appellants contended in reference to the queries posed by the Assistant Collector dated 13-5-1986 pertaining to the manufacturing process that 69% to 83% contents are of iron in different types of materials produced by them and remaining elements comprise of carbon, silicon, manganese, phosphorus, sulphur, chromium, W-tungsten, molybdenum, vanadium, cobalt. They also mentioned that the predominant elements is further iron. They gave the details pertaining to the heat treatment process inasmuch as that the heat treatment varies from 550C to 1240C. It is cooled in the open air; part of it is below re-crystallisation and part of it is above re-crystallisation; polishing and cleaning is done manually; range of sizes is from 3.32" cross section to 1" cross section i.e. from 2.38 mm to 25.4 mm; cutting of the tool is done on the bandsaw cutting machine.
21. As regards the query posed by the Assistant Collector pertaining to 20/963 the essential characteristics, they stated that in order to call a specific item 'tool' it should have a cutting edge, and grooving, and working surface etc. otherwise the properties described by them will not convert a blank into a 'tool' which is a final product, as commonly understood in the industry. In support of their contention they had placed evidence in the form of letters issued by the following: (i) Steelage Industries Ltd. who by their letter dated 27th August, 1981 has stated that the tool bits manufactured by the appellants and sold to them are in the nature of blanks and it may be used directly as Tools and require further processing such as grinding to provide suitable shapes and sizes before such blanks can be used as Tools on Lathe Machine etc.
(ii) Letter dated 27th August, 1981 Siemens India Ltd. filed an affidavit on behalf of the Purchase officer to state that they have been using the Tool Bits manufactured by the appellants in their Metal Cutting Operations. They have stated that before putting the tool bits manufactured by them in their lathe/shaping/boring machines, they have to arrange grinding, edge-sharpening, grooving etc. on these tool bits so as to give them the required shapes and sizes and the tool bits as bought are just in the nature of blanks cut to different sizes and, therefore, cannot be used directly as Tools. They have stated that they get such further processing done from in their own plant and it is not possible to get processing done from others on job work basis.
(iii) M/s. Oriental Metal Pressing Works Pvt. Ltd. by their Production Engineer had filed affidavit to the effect that they have been using the tool bits manufactured by the appellants and that before putting the tool bits manufactured by the appellants in their own lathe/shaping/boring machines, they have to arrange grinding, edge-sharpening, grooving etc. on these tool bits so as to give them the required shapes and sizes. They have stated that the tool bits as bought are just in the nature of blanks cut to different sizes and therefore, cannot be used directly as Tools.
(iv) M/s. Metal Box India Limited by their Tool Room In-charge has also filed a similar affidavit that the items are in the nature of blanks cut to different sizes and they carried out several processes to make it to Tools.
22. The above evidence was before the lower authorities including the detail submissions as well as the technical literature. However, the lower authorities have not looked into these aspects of the matter, but has straightaway proceeded to hold that they are tools and earlier classification under Tariff Item 68 are not applicable to the present classification under new tariff. The Assistant Collector has proceeded to hold that he is satisfied that the test of essential characteristics is satisfied inasmuch as it has a cutting edge, shape and capability to cut. However, the learned Assistant Collector has not produced any evidence with regard to this finding that the item has acquired an essential characteristics of a tool edge, but he has drawn his own inference against the solid evidence in the form of affidavits that the item is a mere blank and has not acquired the characteristics of the tool. The learned Assistant Collector has proceeded to apply Rule 2(a) of Rules of Interpretation without looking into the Rule 1 of the Rules of Interpretation which clearly states :- "1. The titles of Sections and Chapters are provided for ease of reference only for legal purposes, classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative Section or Chapter Notes and, provided such headings or Notes do not otherwise require, according to the provisions, hereinafter contained." 23. The Tribunal has examined the aspect of applicability of Rule 2(a) in several of its judgments. It has been reiterated over and over again that the classification has to be determined on the basis of Section Note, Chapter Notes and only thereafter the other rules of interpretation have to be pressed into service. In this regard, one judgment can be cited i.e. Hindustan Gas & Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, as reported in 1990 (49) E.L.T. 548, wherein at para 8, it has been clearly held that "from the Rules for Interpretation of the Schedule, it is evident that the Rules are to be invoked only if the goods cannot be classified under the Schedule by reference to the headings, sub-headings and relative Chapter and Section Notes". The aspect pertaining to the applicability of Rule 2(a) has again been gone into a great detail in the case of Aravali Forgings Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise,Echjay Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, as reported in 1994 (72) E.L.T. 98 and that of Jaxjpee Forges v. Collector of Central Excise, as reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 49. Without dwelling into a great detail on the applicability of Rule 2(a), I have to hold that the Tribunal has in all these judgments analysed the effect of Rule 2(a) and has held that it has to be pressed into force only when the item has assumed the characteristics of the final product. Admittedly in the present case, the item is only a blank, cut to pieces and nothing beyond that. There has been categorical statements from the party and supported by trade evidence that the item has to undergo several processes to assume the nature of a tool. It does not have a cutting edge and grooving and working surface. Therefore, the item which has merely been cut to piece cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered as a "tools" for the purpose of classification under Chapter 82. Further, the Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 82 itself categorically states that "This chapter covers only goods with a blade, working edge, working surface or other working parls". Therefore, applying this Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 82, the item, not having a blade, working edge, working surface or other working part, therefore, the item cannot fall within Chapter 82. As can be seen from the description of the goods under Chapter 82, it includes "tools with hand tools and the authorities thereof; interchangeable tools, industrial knives and blades or for hand or machine saw, the blades etc., razors and razor blades, hand or pedal operated grinding wheels with frameworks etc., spoons, forks and other articles of cutlery for table or kitchen use etc., other tools and implements etc." Therefore, on a reading of the headings under Chapter 82 as well as the HSN Explanatory Notes, it is very clear that the item has assumed any of the characteristics in order to become a tool in any sense to be brought under Chapter 82.
Therefore, the finding arrived at by the learned Member (J) that Chapter 82 is excluded is a correct finding which also finds support from the order of the Collectorate of Vadodara. The only reasoning given by the lower authorities is that the Rule 2(a) is required to be pressed. In.the case of Aravali Forgings Ltd., Echjay Industries Ltd. and Jaypee Forges, it has been held that the burden to invoke Rule 2(a) is on the department and the department should produce evidence to show that the item has acquired the shape of an article, in the form of being a semi-finished article. In this case, no such evidence has been produced. It is seen from the records pertaining to Bombay Collectorate, that the department did not issue show cause notice to invoke Rule 2(a) nor disclosed the grounds for classifying under Chapter 82 nor they produced any evidence. They ordered for classification under Chapter 82 in the classification list itself without discharging their burden. While in the case of Vadodara Collectorate, the Supdt. by his show cause notice dated 28-5-1987 has stated that the item is a tool classifiable under Chapter 73, but they have not' invoked Rule 2(a). Therefore, the lower authorities of Bombay Collectorate while proceeding to pass order invoking Rule 2(a) is not sustainable. The lower authorities have proceeded on wrong premise, to presume that the item is to be considered as a tool, by totally rejecting the evidence and the contention of the appellants and they have not disclosed the reasons as to why the evidence and contentions are required to be rejected. In that sense, the order of the Assistant Collector of Bombay Collectorate is not a speaking order at all. In the Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Collector, within the jurisdiction of Vadodara Collectorate no finding has been given on the contention raised by the party except that he has made a reference to the party's submissions and the citations and the trade notice relied by the party. The learned Assistant Collector has proceeded to classify the goods under Chapter 73 and rejected the plea for classification under Chapter 72. However, as has been noted earlier, the show cause notice proceeded to classify the item under Chapter 7308.90 prior to 1-3-1988. The Assistant Collector in the final order has held that the goods are classifiable under 7308.90 prior to 1-3-1988 and sub-heading 7326.90 after 1-3-1988. It is significant to note that the Supdt. by his show cause notice dated 28-5-1987 has indicated that the classification list was approved on 29-10-1986 under sub-heading No.8204.00. It states that on going through their submissions, the item would specifically fall under sub-heading 7308.90 as an articles of iron and steel products. The show cause notice intends to classification prior to 1-3-1988 only and no heading for classification subsequent to 1-3-1988 has been suggested to the appellants except in the order of the Assistant Collector. It is also seen that the Vadodara Collector has accepted the item as "mere blanks" and not as tools.
However, it is only the sub-heading, which is disputed.
24. The learned Sr. Advocate brought to my notice the earlier judgments on this item, wherein the Tribunal categorically held that the tool bit blanks cannot be considered as "tools" as in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. S.S. Miranda Ltd. 519. It has been held that the tool blanks cannot be put to actual use directly but are to be subjected to further processing in the nature of sharpening, edging etc. The blanks have not attained the shape or character of the bits and it would not be proper to infer that even before they attain the said shape and character, they would still be tool bits. This finding was again reiterated by the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Indian Tools Manufacturers as reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 708. This judgment found favour again in the case of Proto Machine Tools Mfg. Co. v. Collector of Central Excise, as reported in 1996 (87) E.L.T. 681. The Tribunal again reiterated these findings in the case of Zenith Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 25. In conclusion the Apex Court's reference in the case of Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd. has to be quoted, wherein the Apex Court has held that the change in tariff does not change the character of the goods. In the present context also, there has been no Section notes or Chapter notes or any other reference in the HSN Explanatory Notes to consider the item to have acquired the essential characteristic to be considered as 'tool' to fall under Chapter 82. Merely because they have been cut to size that by itself is no ground for classifying the goods under Chapter 82. In view of the evidence placed and the department's failure to discharge their burden of classification, I am inclined to agree with the order proposed by the learned Member (J)- The appeal papers shall be placed before the original Bench for passing the final order.
26. In view of majority opinion the impugned Order-in-Appeal No.E/3554/87-B is set aside and this appeal allowed, while the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. E/4553/94-B is modified to the extent indicated - that is, the item will be classifiable under 7308.90 for the period up to 1-3-1988 and under 7224.00 subsequent to 1-4-1988, and classification under Heading 7326.90 for the subsequent period is set aside. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
Sd/- Sd/-