Full Judgment
2. The Appellants imported punches and dies alongwith punch press.
Admittedly the Punches and Dies were covered by separate Bill of Lading, separate invoice and separate value. The goods were assessed to custom duty under Heading 82.05 CTEA and were cleared. Subsequently the Appellants claimed, refund of a part of the duty of custom paid by them on the ground that the goods were re-classifiable under Heading 84.05/48 as parts of machine tools.
3. The Assistant Collector held that the goods were not imported along with main machine and were charged separately by the supplier.
Therefore, the Accessories (Condition) Rules ACR 1963 were not applicable. He therefore rejected the claim.
4. The Appellate Collector before whom an appeal was filed held that in view of note 2(a) to Chapter 84 read with note l(ij) of Section XVI, the goods were to be classified under Heading 82.05 and rejected the appeals. Hence the present appeal.
5. Sh. B.N. Sharma, Ld. Consultant for the Appellants submitted that the correct classification of the goods is under Heading 84.45/48...was classified under that heading. He submitted that even if accessories rules do not cover the goods, the imported goods should be classified under this heading as Section Note l(ij) applied only to interchangeable tools and the imported Punches and Dies are not interchangeable. Each set of these Punches and Die can perform only one task according to the Learned Consultant. In this connection Shri Sharma submitted that interchangeable tools were defined in the judgment of CEGAT in Purewall & Associates Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay (1983 ECR 2137 D).
6. Shri J. Gopinath, Ld. SDR pointed out that the imported goods were a separate consignment from the main machine and covered by a separate invoice. Therefore, there was no question of applying the accessories Rules to the same. In support of this argument, Shri Gopinath relied on the packing list copy of which was filed during the course of hearing.
7. Referring to the CEGAT orders in Purewall (Supra) Shri Gopinath argued that if one machine can use several Punches and Dies, even for different operations, such Punches and Dies are interchangeable. With reference to the cited judgment Shri Gopinath pointed out that the definition issued by the International Organisation for Standardisation, which was referred to in the said judgment to define interchangeability, carried a note that "the functional aspect of interchangeability is called 'functional interchangeability' and the "dimensional aspect dimensional interchangeability". With reference to the packing list Shri Gopinath explained that the Punches and Dies varied in measurement from 3mm to 60mm. The Ld. SDR explained that when a given diameter is to be bored the punch or die of the same diameter is not used straightaway, but a smaller diameter is drilled in the first instance and the diameter is increased in stages, by using different Punches and Dies, till the desired diameter is obtained.
Therefore, according to Shri Gopinath, there is functional interchangeability in the tools that are imported. The Ld. SDR distinguished the facts of the cited case by submitting that in Purewall case only one set of Dies, for manufacture of a particular watch-part was imported whereas in the present case several sets of Punches and Dies of varying dimensions were imported.
8. Shri B.N. Sharma, Ld. Consultant in his rejoinder argued that each Punch and Die can do only one job and therefore it cannot be said that the imported tools were interchangeable.
9. We have considered the arguments of both sides. It is clear that the imported goods are not entitled to the benefit of accessories Rules, their supply not having been compulsory and separate value being charged for them.
10. The only question that remains is whether the imported Punches and Dies are interchangeable tools or not. We have carefully perused the judgment of the Tribunal in Purewell (supra). As correctly pointed out by the Ld. SDR the Dies imported in that case were intended only for one operation namely - manufacture of a part of watch. Besides, the explanation to the definition given by the International Standards Organisation shows that interchangeability is of two kinds namely - functional and dimensional. From a perusal of the packing list, and from the explanation given by the Ld. SDR, we are convinced that the Punches and Dies imported in this case are interchangeable both functionally and dimensionally. The impugned order does not, therefore, call for interference.