Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Cce vs Pyrene Rai Metal Treatment Ltd. on 25 June, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(61)ECC526, 1998ECR576(TRI.-DELHI)
ORDER P.C. Jain, Member (T)
1. Short question involved in this appeal is the question of classification of the two products described as follows:--
(i) Ardrox PC 7905B/7906B -- sample is an acidic aqueous solution of inorganic chemical "Sodium Chlorite";
(ii) Ardrox PC 7905A/7906A -- sample is an aqueous solution of inorganic chemicals like caustic soda and inorganic phosphates. It can find use as a degreasing agent.
2. Before we deal with the arguments of both the sides, we would also like to reproduce the findings of the lower appellate authority which has held the classification of the two products under Tariff Heading No. 3823.90 in favour of the respondents herein:--
4. I have considered the submissions. Here, there are two products, viz., Ardrox PC 7905 and PC 7906. PC 7905A and 7906A which are described as alkaline additive and 7905B which are described as oxidiser additive. From the literature furnished by the appellants, it is seen that PC 7905 and PC 7906 are for alkaline oxide chemical treatment of copper surfaces which enhances bond strengths of layers during manufacture of multilayer printed circuit and improve the adhesion of solder mask to copper. They will produce a brown or black oxide at relatively low temperature and can be used either in dip or floor applications. It is also further stated that PC 7905 and PC 7906 are prepared from two components. They are 7905A and 7905B or 7906A and 7906B. The resultant solution of these contain--
DI Water 22% by volume Ardrox PC 7905A 25% by volume Ardrox PC 7905B 53% by volume DI Water 20% by volume Ardrox PC 7906A 40% by volume Ardrox PC 7906B 40% by volume
The use of the PC 7905A and 7906A is for treating the surface of the printed circuit. They prepare the surface of the PC for oxidation and 7905B/7906B are used for coating the copper surface with brown or black oxide. Without the clearing treatment, the oxidation will not. settle. Therefore, they, are not used separately or individually, but both are complimentary to each other. The reason for supplying these two chemicals separately is that if premixed the mixture will not be stable for very long time due to presence of sodium chlorite. Therefore, they are sold as two components, viz., as part A and part B and mixed only at the time of use. This submission of the appellants is supported by the technical literature supplied by them from Brent Electronic Systems Group Brent Europe Limited, Technical Information.
5. The Deputy Chief Chemist has not given opinion regarding the use of the product PC 7905B and 7906B except for their composition. He does not by that they are degreasing agent. Even then, the Assistant Collector has held them as degreasing agent. In fact, PC 7905A and 7906A are alkaline additives used for surface treatment preparing the printed circuit boards for oxidation, whereas, PC 7906B/PC 7905B are oxidiser. In that sense, the Assistant Collector's order to classify both of the products under chapter sub-heading No. 3402.90 is wrong. In the context of the technical literature and the use of the products, it has to be held that both products though have separate properties but being complimentary to each other are incapable of being used independently. Therefore, they have to be classified together as one product. In that case, the degreasing properties of the component, i.e. 7905A and 7906A would become secondary. The main purpose of the product with these two components A and B is oxidation which provides bond strengths of layers during multilayer printed circuit and improve the adhesion of solder mask to copper. As such, the two components should be taken together as a single product for the classification purpose. In that case, they cannot be considered under the chapter sub-heading No. 3402.90. They are rightly classifiable under chapter sub-heading No. 3823.90 as a miscellaneous chemical product.
3. Ld.-SDR Shri A.K. Madan submits that the two products are cleared separately and not in a single package. He further submits that the test report of the Deputy Chief Chemist very clearly indicates that the products in question are for cleaning the circuit board and preparing it for oxidation so that it can take up the soldering material for loading the PCB. Consequently, he submits that Tariff Heading No. 3402.90 described as:--
Organic surface active agents (other than soap); surface active preparations, washing preparations, (including auxiliary washing preparations) and cleaning preparations, whether or not containing soap.
is more specific to the products in question. He therefore, urges for classifying the said products under the said tariff heading.
4. Opposing the contention Ld. Advocate Shri B.N. Rangwani submits that the two chemicals, though no doubt cleared separately, are not in any manner cleaning preparations. Product No. A apart from cleaning also prepares the PCB for oxidation purposes. Its use simplicitor is not cleaning of the PCB. Therefore, the product A will be covered by Tariff Heading No. 3823.90 being a miscellaneous chemical product not elsewhere specified in the tariff. As regards the Product B Ld. Advocate submits that this chemical is only an and has noting to do with cleaning at all. Therefore classification of this product under Tariff Heading No. 3402.90 as proposed by the Revenue would be totally misplaced. Being a miscellaneous chemical its classification has also been rightly done by the lower appellate authority under Tariff Heading No. 3823.90. Ld. Advocate for the respondents submits that merely because the Product A contains caustic soda it does not mean that it becomes a cleaning preparation. Hence, his prayer for dismissal of Revenue's appeal.
5. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We observe that the test results have not been disputed by either side. Therefore, on the basis of test results, as mentioned in the impugned order the product Ardrox PC 7905A/7906A has a cleaning purpose. It may be that it may have an incidental purpose as well of preparing the PCB for oxidation. But as pointed out by the lower appellate authority in its observation in para 4 that the said product cleans the PCB and prepares it for oxidation. The other product Ardrox PC 7905B/7906B is essentially an oxidiser for treating the PCB for its ultimate use as electronic goods. Keeping in view the properties of both the chemicals, as mentioned above and it is not disputed by either side, we are of the view that the product PC 7905A/7906A would fall under Tariff Heading No. 3402.90. However, the other product Ardrox PC 7905B/7906B has nothing to do with cleaning aspect of PCB and therefore, its classification under Tariff Heading No. 3823.90 by the lower appellate; authority is correct in law and on facts. We order accordingly. Appeal disposed of in the above manner.
Dictated in open Court.