Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Commissioner Of Customs vs G. Claridge And Co. Ltd. on 13 August, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1998(100)ELT420(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. With consent of both parties the appeal itself was taken up for hearing after granting waiver of pre-deposit.
2. The appellant imported a paper/pulp moulding plant, which was cleared, as claimed by the importer, under Tariff Item 9801.00 under Notification 315/93. Both these relate to import of a project, for which there is a concessional rate of duty. Subsequently, the appellant claimed re-assessment of the goods, under Notification 64/87, the rate of duty provided therein being lower than the rate applicable to Project Imports. It also claimed refund the difference in duty between the two rates. The Asst. Commissioner rejected the claim. In appeal the Commissioner accepted the importer's claim and set aside the Asst. Collector's order. Hence this appeal by the Deptt.
3. The Deptt. representative contends that once the goods have been classified under Heading 9801.00, which is specific for Project Import, they lose their identity as machines classifiable under Chapter 84. Since Notification 74/87 provided for assessment at the concessional rate of duty for goods classifiable under that Chapter, it would not apply to these goods.
4. In Collector of Customs v. Bharat Heavy Electricals - reported in 1987 (31) E.L.T. 534 this Tribunal has held that the concessional assessment under Project Imports was availed of would not be a bar for availing of any other exemption notification. The specific question which arises in this appeal is answered by this Tribunal in Mitra Prakashan P. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs -1991 (51) E.L.T. 111. The Deptt. had raised the contention that once the importer has chosen to seek classification of the goods under Heading 9801.00 he foregoes the option of having the goods assessed on their merits - in that case, under Chapter 90. It was contended that once the goods are classified under Heading 9801 after the contract for the Project is registered, the identity of the goods as separate machines classifiable under any other Headings is lost for the purpose of classification on merits. The Tribunal did not accept this contention. It observed:
"That is to say, Notification No, 132/85 will not in any way affect the exemption from basic Customs duty conferred on an article by any other notification for the time being in force. Thus Notification No. 132/85 does not derogate in any way from the application of another notification which may prescribe a rate of basic Customs duty on an article lower than 30% ad valorem."
5. The object of having a separate Tariff heading for Project Imports is to facilitate, from both the Department's as well as the importer's point of view, assessment of goods which would otherwise have consumed an inordinate amount of time and effort. Industrial projects very often involve importation of a large number of items each of which would be classifiable under a separate heading, with, frequently, different rates of duty. Classification on merits of each item would involve the importer having to file bills of entry running into many pages and the assessing officer spending time on each item for correct classification. It is apparent that it is with a view to avoiding such delay and time consuming work that it was decided to have a separate heading for the various raw materials, components etc. imported for setting upon substantially enlarging specified projects. The fact that an item is classifiable under Heading 98.01 therefore does not mean that it cannot be classified under any other heading. In fact, it would be more correct to say that although the item is classifiable on merits under another heading it has been decided for purpose of convenience to classify under Heading 98.01. It would therefore follow that the identity of the item has been classifiable under any other heading is not lost. Since it is open to the importer to avail of any one of two or more exemption notification available, as has been discussed above, the appellant has rightly claimed the assessment of the goods under the notification which was more beneficial to it. This is the finding that the Commissioner (A) has arrived at and we find no ground to disagree.
6. Appeal dismissed.