Gujarat State Export Corporation Vs. Collr. of Cus. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. in the present appeal the dispute centres round whether the goods imported and described as press mould plates are classifiable under the then t.i. 73.15 as stainless steel or under the then 84.60 as metal.2. the appellants have requested for consideration of their case on merits. they have also cited and relied upon the decision of this tribunal in the case of bakelite hylam ltd. reported in 1986 (25) e.l.t. 240 wherein this tribunal after going through the literature, catalogue and technical write-up, by majority of decision, held that "a reading of tariff item 84.60 of the customs tariff act, 1975 reveals that besides speaking of 'moulding boxes' for metal foundry, it takes within its abmit moulds of 'other types' also in relation to certain products; inter alia of artificial plastic materials. this indicates that besides the conventional concept of moulds, such as the cavities, contours or hollows, insofar as products of ceramic pastes, cement, rubber or artificial plastic material are concerned, certain other types which perform the function of mould could also be taken within the fold of this entry, namely t.i. 84.60. there is abundant material on record in the nature of literature as well as papers, pamphlets, catalogues from manufacturers, produced by the importers where the imported press-plates have been described as flat moulds or simply 'moulds'. whether the moulds are 'flat' or in the form of 'cavities' or other 'profiles' will depend upon the shape, the end-product is intended to take in case the final product is to be made in 'sheet' form as plastic laminates, then the moulding could also be, rather has to be, done by flat moulds. in any case, it cannot be said that these can, in no case, be considered to be falling under t.i. 84.60. these could fall under t.i. 73.15, read with the definition of 'sheets and plates' as given in chapter note l(n) to chapter 73, only if they were positively and wholly excluded from t.i. 84.60. it is also an established proposition that, even if there was a doubt, the benefit of 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.i. 73.15 as contended by the revenue." it has been submitted by the appellants that the product imported by them was the same as taken for decision by the tribunal in the aforesaid case and therefore prayed that the appeal may be allowed.3. shri mohammed ali, ld. jdr appearing for the respondents submits that the importer in the present case was not actual user but had imported the goods for the purpose of trading. he submits that the appellants in the instant case have neither produced any catalogue or technical literature to show that the goods described as press mould sheets were actually moulds or deserved classification as moulds in accordance with chapter note l(n) of chapter 73 of the then customs tariff. the ld. jdr submits that in the case of bakelite hylam ltd. the goods were described mould press plates. he submits that in the case of bakelite hylam ltd. they were actual user of the imported goods. this was one of the points dealt with by the tribunal and held that moulds press plates were classifiable as moulds under t.i. 84.60 of the customs tariff act. he submits that a reading of the description that the goods were not given the shape of mould but actually were in the form of sheets and therefore the lower authorities have rightly classified them as stainless sheets under t.i. 73.15 of the then customs tariff.4. heard the submissions of the ld. jdr. we have perused the grounds of appeal as also the case law cited and relied upon by the appellants. we find that the items in dispute are described as press mould sheets whereas in the case of bakelite hylam ltd. the imported goods were described as moulds-press plates. the question therefore arises whether the goods in the case before us are the same as those in the case before the tribunal in the case of bakelite hylam. we find that in the case of bakelite hylam the tribunal went into detailed examination of what moulds are. they examined technical literature and catalogue also and came to the conclusion after perusing the chapter note l(n) of chapter 73 that plates and sheets under specific description could be treated as moulds. the tribunal also held that moulds do not necessarily have cavities, contours or hollows. the tribunal after considering all these facts came to the conclusion that moulds-press plates fall under t.i. 84.60 under the then customs tariff and not stainless sheets under t.i. 73.15. we find that the moulds-press plates and press moulds plates are identical goods. we also find that examination report also shows that these goods were stainless steel press mould plates and were not stainless steel sheets. the appellants have not produced any technical literature and write-up or catalogue.looking to the facts that the goods have been described as press mould sheets in the bill of entry and invoice and were found on examination to be stainless steel press mould plates, we find that these goods are akin to stainless steel press moulds and therefore we hold that the ratio of the decision of this tribunal in the case of bakelite hylam ltd. cited (supra) squarely covers the goods before us. in this view of the matter the goods in the instant case shall be classifiable under t.i. 84.60. in the result the appeal is allowed.

Judgment:
1. In the present appeal the dispute centres round whether the goods imported and described as press mould plates are classifiable under the then T.I. 73.15 as stainless steel or under the then 84.60 as metal.

2. The appellants have requested for consideration of their case on merits. They have also cited and relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Bakelite Hylam Ltd. reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 240 wherein this Tribunal after going through the literature, catalogue and technical write-up, by majority of decision, held that "A reading of Tariff Item 84.60 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 reveals that besides speaking of 'moulding boxes' for metal foundry, it takes within its abmit moulds of 'other types' also in relation to certain products; inter alia of artificial plastic materials. This indicates that besides the conventional concept of moulds, such as the cavities, contours or hollows, insofar as products of ceramic pastes, cement, rubber or artificial plastic material are concerned, certain other types which perform the function of mould could also be taken within the fold of this entry, namely T.I. 84.60. There is abundant material on record in the nature of literature as well as papers, pamphlets, catalogues from manufacturers, produced by the importers where the imported press-plates have been described as flat moulds or simply 'moulds'. Whether the moulds are 'flat' or in the form of 'cavities' or other 'profiles' will depend upon the shape, the end-product is intended to take in case the final product is to be made in 'sheet' form as plastic laminates, then the moulding could also be, rather has to be, done by flat moulds. In any case, it cannot be said that these can, in no case, be considered to be falling under T.I. 84.60. These could fall under T.I. 73.15, read with the definition of 'sheets and plates' as given in Chapter Note l(n) to Chapter 73, only if they were positively and wholly excluded from T.I. 84.60. It is also an established proposition that, even if there was a doubt, the benefit of 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.I. 73.15 as contended by the Revenue." It has been submitted by the appellants that the product imported by them was the same as taken for decision by the Tribunal in the aforesaid case and therefore prayed that the appeal may be allowed.

3. Shri Mohammed Ali, ld. JDR appearing for the respondents submits that the importer in the present case was not actual user but had imported the goods for the purpose of trading. He submits that the appellants in the instant case have neither produced any catalogue or technical literature to show that the goods described as press mould sheets were actually moulds or deserved classification as moulds in accordance with Chapter Note l(n) of Chapter 73 of the then Customs Tariff. The ld. JDR submits that in the case of Bakelite Hylam Ltd. the goods were described mould press plates. He submits that in the case of Bakelite Hylam Ltd. they were actual user of the imported goods. This was one of the points dealt with by the Tribunal and held that moulds press plates were classifiable as moulds under T.I. 84.60 of the Customs Tariff Act. He submits that a reading of the description that the goods were not given the shape of mould but actually were in the form of sheets and therefore the lower authorities have rightly classified them as stainless sheets under T.I. 73.15 of the then Customs Tariff.

4. Heard the submissions of the ld. JDR. We have perused the grounds of appeal as also the case law cited and relied upon by the appellants. We find that the items in dispute are described as press mould sheets whereas in the case of Bakelite Hylam Ltd. the imported goods were described as moulds-press plates. The question therefore arises whether the goods in the case before us are the same as those in the case before the Tribunal in the case of Bakelite Hylam. We find that in the case of Bakelite Hylam the Tribunal went into detailed examination of what moulds are. They examined technical literature and catalogue also and came to the conclusion after perusing the Chapter Note l(n) of Chapter 73 that plates and sheets under specific description could be treated as moulds. The Tribunal also held that moulds do not necessarily have cavities, contours or hollows. The Tribunal after considering all these facts came to the conclusion that moulds-press plates fall under T.I. 84.60 under the then Customs Tariff and not stainless sheets under T.I. 73.15. We find that the moulds-press plates and press moulds plates are identical goods. We also find that examination report also shows that these goods were stainless steel press mould plates and were not stainless steel sheets. The appellants have not produced any technical literature and write-up or catalogue.

Looking to the facts that the goods have been described as press mould sheets in the Bill of Entry and invoice and were found on examination to be stainless steel press mould plates, we find that these goods are akin to stainless steel press moulds and therefore we hold that the ratio of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Bakelite Hylam Ltd. cited (supra) squarely covers the goods before us. In this view of the matter the goods in the instant case shall be classifiable under T.I. 84.60. In the result the appeal is allowed.