1. M/s. Assam Hardboards Limited have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs, Calcutta.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that M/s. Assam Hardboards Ltd., Calcutta had imported a consignment of 20 pieces of surface plates with lugs valued at Rs. 3,03,228.42 per S.S. Indian Progress Rot. No.255/87, Line No. 74 and sought clearance under OGL Appendix 6(4) as spare parts for machine tools for working wood falling under Heading 8466.92. The goods were examined and on their examination the shed appraiser's view was that the goods were stainless steel plates of length 394 cm, width 147.5 cm and thickness 5 mm. The revenue authorities were of the view that the goods imported were stainless steel plates and were classifiable under Heading 7219.90. Stainless steel plates fall under Sl. No. 52 of Appendix 5, Part-A as canalised item and required valid licence for clearance. Since the goods could not be treated as spares, the same were not covered under OGL Appendix 6(4) as claimed by the importers. No valid import licence was produced and the revenue authorities were of the view that the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants had waived the issuance of a show cause notice but had requested for granting a personal hearing. At the time of personal hearing, the appellants had contended that the goods could not be treated as stainless steel plates falling under Heading 7219.90 C.T.A.but were assessable under Heading 8466.92 read with Heading 84.65. The appellants had also taken the plea that machinery parts made of stainless steel were not covered under Chapter XV in view of Section note (f) to the relevant chapter. It was also contended that the goods had acquired character of articles or products of other heading, since they were fitted with lugs and these are excluded from the definition of "Flat Rolled Products" vide Chapter Note l(k) of Chapter 72.
Photographs of the parts were also filed with the Collector, the appellants had contended that the goods imported were surface plates with lugs one side polished finished and as such they were parts of hot press for the manufacture of hardboards. The learned Collector had taken the view that the goods in question were stainless steel press plates and merely that sides have certain attachment for fitting does not take it away from the purview of plates as is understood in common parlance. The supplier was a manufacturer of steel products and not machinery parts. The learned Collector had taken the view that if an article is of general nature and had independent characteristic for classification as such, merely the fact that some of such goods could be used as such will not take it away from the purview of classification as is commonly understood in common parlance and from the literature of the supplier, it was evident that they were manufacturer of various steel products and the goods imported were press plates - Avesta 393 HCR and in the literature there is nowhere any mention that they are components of any machinery. They are only stainless plates of certain specified quality and dimension and the classification of the goods as components of machinery was ruled out and the appropriate classification would be under Heading 7219.90.
3. For unauthorised importation, the Collector had taken a lenient view and had cautioned the appellants to be careful in future.
4. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the appellants have come hi appeal before the Tribunal.
5. Shri D.K. Mukhopadhyay, the learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellants. He has reiterated the facts and the arguments advanced before the lower authorities. Shri Mukhopadhyay, the learned advocate, states that the revenue has assessed the same under Heading 7219.90 as stainless steel plates, whereas the appellants want the assessment under Heading 8466.92. Shri Mukhopadhyay, the learned advocate states that the plates imported are fitted with lugs and by no stretch of imagination the same can be treated as stainless steel plates. In support of his arguments, he has referred to the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Bakelite Hylam Ltd., Bombay and Anr. v.Collector of Customs, Bombay and Anr. reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 240 where the majority view of the Tribunal was that press plates for producing plastic laminates classifiable as moulds under Heading 84.60 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and not as stainless sheets under Heading 73.15. It was further held that: "even if there was a doubt, the benefit of that doubt should be given to the assessee.
Interpretative Rule 3(a) provides that the Heading, which provides the most specific description, shall be preferred to Headings providing a more general description. "Therefore, the goods fall under Tariff Item 84.60 and not, as 'stainless sheets', under T.1.73.15, as contended by the Revenue." 6. Shri C.V. Durghayya, the learned JDR who has appeared on behalf of the respondent, relies on the order-in-original and states that the Bakelite Hylam judgment cited by the learned advocate for the appellants is not applicable in the present case. Shri Durghayya has argued that the ratio laid in the Bakelite Hylam case is not applicable in the case of the appellants. Therefore, the goods were assessed under old Tariff Item 84.60. In the Harmonised Tariff it is 84.80, whereas in the matter before the Tribunal the revenue has assessed under Heading 7219.90, whereas the appellants have claimed assessment under Heading 8466.92. Shri Durghayya has argued that it is not a component part. The drawings produced by the appellants are not manufacturer's drawings. He has referred to note (k) of Chapter 72 which describes Flat-rolled products: Rolled products of solid rectangular (other than square) cross-section, which do not conform to the definition at (ij). He has pleaded for the rejection of the appeal.
7. In reply Shri Mukhopadhyay, the learned advocate, states that the goods imported are parts. The weight of each sheet is 232 kgs.
approximately. He has pleaded for the acceptance of the appeal.
8. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The facts are not disputed. The issue to be decided is whether the goods imported by the appellants are to be assessed as surface plates with lugs as parts of machine tool for pressing hardboard, made of wood waste under Heading 84.65 or under Heading 8466.92 or under Heading 7219.90, as claimed by the revenue.
The length of each steel plate is 394 cm, width 147.5 cm. and thickness 5 mm. The learned representative of the department as per direction of the Bench also filed certified photographs of the imported goods. A catalogue of the supplier has also been filed by the appellants. With the appeal memo the appellants had filed a drawing and also a catalogue of Avesta stainless steel press plates. In the description given in the pamphlet, it is mentioned that press plates are manufactured from hot or cold-rolled plates in steel grades according to table 1, and in special forms and finishes for applications such as - Relevant extract from table I - Steel grades for press plate is reproduced below :---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Steel grade C Chemical Composition Steel grade according to national productAvesta Si % Mn Cr, standards Ni DIN ASTM BS NF--------------------------------------------------------------------------------393 HCR 0.150.50 0.5012.5 SS-2302 1.4024 (410) (410S21) (Z12C13)832H 0.10 0.50 1.50 17.0 8.0 - 1.4310 (301) (301 S21) (Z12CN 17.07) In the pamphlet AVESTA 393 HCR it is written "Hardened martensitic chromium steel with high resistance to various forms of plate damage, such as indentations, scratches etc. Low thermal expansion reduces the risk of deformation. Its corrosion resistance is somewhat lower than that of the austenitic steels. Very suitable for chromium-plating, since the difference in linear expansion of the steel and the chromium layer is small." 'Product Standards' is also reproduced below: "Press plate is manufactured to order according to AVESTA specifications. National product standards do not exist for press plate. However, special product requirements can be met by special agreement." Three photographs have been filed by the learned JDR. The photographs are reproduced below:- We have perused the photographs. A simple perusal of the photographs shows that there are 6 lugs on the length of the sheet. This cannot be treated as an ordinary stainless steel sheet or plate. The Collector in the operative part of the order has observed as under : "Considering, however, that these are Press Plates and the importation is made with a bonafide belief by Actual Users, a lenient view is taken. The importers are cautioned to be careful in future." Note 1. (0 of Section XV does not cover articles of Section XVI (machinery, mechanical appliances and electrical goods). Heading 8466.92 and Heading 7219.90 are reproduced below :---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Head Sub- Description of Article Rate of Dutying heading Std.
Prefn.AreasNo. No.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------84.66 Parts and accessories suitable for use solely or principally with the 8466.92 For machines of Heading No. 40% 84.65 7219.90 Other 300 Plus Rs...-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The details of the goods imported by the appellants as per specifications of the supplier clearly show that these are parts of machine tool for pressing hard board of wood waste and there are six lugs on the length of the sheet on each side. Accordingly, we are of the view that the goods imported by the appellants fall under Heading 8466.92. The revenue authorities are directed to give consequential effect to this order.