Judgment:
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of the goods described as doctor's briefcases. Neither side disputes that the articles consists of the outer shell of a briefcase internally adopted, by means of a melted plastic tray fitted with screws on either side to the bracket attached to the side apparently to carry tools of physicians' profession. It is contended that inside of the top half has also been somewhat modified in order to carry ampoules and bottles of medicine. Both sides agree that the articles would be classifiable under Heading 4201 as travel goods and handbags or similar container.
The dispute is classification under sub-heading 10 or sub-heading 90.
Among the articles classifiable under sub-heading 10 are briefcases, all sorts. The department finds the article, notwithstanding the adaptation made to its particular portion a briefcase, all sorts. The manufacturer contends it to be other than briefcase and hence classifiable under sub-heading 90.
2. The Tribunal had considered the classification of a similar commodity under the earlier tariff. Heading 48A of that tariff was for specified travelled goods suitcases, briefcases, vanity bags and vanity cases, all sorts. In C.C.E. v. Safari Industries Ltd. -1998 (104) E.L.T. 54, the Tribunal found this article not to be a briefcase. The Member (Judicial) found that the "structure (of the article is moulded in such a way that it cannot be removed or separated). She found no material to counter the finding of the Collector (Appeals), in the order impugned before the Tribunal, that in trade understanding, these goods were differently regarded from briefcases. She therefore concluded that the goods were not classifiable under tariff item 4801 as travelled goods, as briefcases (it should be noted that there was no sub-heading in item 48). The Vice President concurred with her, but for a different reason. He said that the article that is carried by a doctor "from the dispensary to him for visiting patient, and does not come under the normal understanding of travelled goods." He further said that it is designed and constructed as to mainly carry various types of medical equipments and not papers or briefs or other documents.
3. The counsel for the appellant says that the ratio of the decision is binding on us.
4. The departmental representative says that there is very little difference between the goods under consideration and the briefcase. The difference is only caused by presence of a moulded plastic tray, which can easily be detached by removing the screws fitted to the bracket attached at both ends, whereupon it becomes indisputably a brief case.
It therefore does not cease to be a briefcase. There is no requirement that a briefcase must be used to carry papers. That might have been the original meaning of the word. It is now, at least in our country, commonly used to carry clothing, money, and all manner of things.
5. The Heading 4801 differs substantially from the corresponding Heading 4802 of Explanatory Notes. The heading of the Harmonised System of Nomenclature that heading which is identical with the Heading 4202 of the Customs tariff specifies a number of items used which would fall within the general description of travel goods, handbags and similar containers. It mentions trunks, suitcases, vanity cases, executive cases, gun cases, camera cases, medical instrument cases, and holders.
The excise tariff does not go into such details but confines itself to travel goods and bags and similar containers. We thus find a clear departure in regard to this heading in the tariff from the H.S.N.Nomenclature. The tariff heading is narrower in scope, covering fewer goods. The reason for this departure perhaps is the fact that in this country, there is no clear distinction of use between these various article. One such article, which may initially have been intended to carry a particular item, may be used to carry other items. Thus, what is described as a briefcase is often used to carry, not papers but clothes and other articles like lunch boxes, money etc. In this context, therefore, it is not possible for us to agree that a briefcase is intended to carry only papers or documents.
6. We asked to see a sample of the commodity in question, and one was produced. The moulded plastic tray, for containing various items, which are stated to be for use by doctors, is by no means permanently fitted.
It is attached by means of two easily removable crews to two brackets attached to either side of the case. The screws were very easily and quickly removed in our presence. Counsel for the appellant found it difficult to agree that the article, thereafter, would be nothing other than a briefcase. It thus appears to us that the article that the members of the bench which decided Safari Industries, [which the Member (Judicial) refers to] was quite different from what was seen by us. We cannot agree that the commodity is so internally fitted that it can be used only by a doctor and by no one else.
7. Nor is it possible to agree, with respect to the Vice President that the article which is carried by medical practitioners from his house to clinic is not travel goods; that would result in saying that when he goes from house does not travel. The counsel for the appellant says that he does not wish to canvass such an argument. The product therefore in our opinion is nothing other than a briefcase. It would therefore fall within the definition of "briefcase all sorts" specified under sub-heading 10.
8. We emphasis that decision is limited to the facts of this case, after having seen the article in question and cannot be applied in the classification of goods which might superficially appear similar. Thus, we expressly refrain from saying that the ratio would apply to other articles such as gun case, camera case etc. Each such classification should be decided in its own merits.