Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Sha Harakchand Samarathmal vs Collector Of Customs on 3 January, 1983
Equivalent citations: 1983ECR257D(TRI.-DELHI), 1983(12)ELT382(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
1. In this case, Cast Coated Chrome art peper imported by the appellants was assessed at higher rates of duty as art board under heading 48.01/ 21(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 read with item 17(2) of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants sought reassessment at lower rates as applicable to printing and writing paper under heading 48.01/21(3) Customs Tariff Act/ 17(1) Central Excise Tariff and asked for refund of the differential duty. Their claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector and later also by the Appellate Collector, on the ground that the goods on test were found to be of a substance of 165.9 gms per Sq. meter and the such goods were known in the trade as art board only and were commonly used for printing of wedding invitation cards.
2. The case was argued before us on 3-1-1983. Shri Arvind Kumar appeared for the appellants and Shri M. Chatterjee for the Department.
3. Shri Arvind Kumar showed a sheet of sample which he claimed was from the impugned goods. He stated that subsequent to the passing of the impugned Order-in-Appeal the matter regarding classification of coated art paper was discussed by the Collectors of Customs sitting in a conference at Goa during March 1981 and based on their deliberations Madras Custom House had issued Public Notice No. 211/81 declaring that coated art paper of a substance below 180 gms would be assessed as paper and not as board, that the paper imported by them was of a substances of 165.9 gms as revealed by the Department's own test and that consignments of similar paper imported later by them as well as by others were assessed as paper only and that similar paper manufactured within the country by M/s Purocoats was assessed as printing and writing paper at lower rate of duty.
4. Shri Chatterjee, on behalf of the Department, reiterated the findings of the Assistant Collector and stated that these were based on market inquiries and trade usage. However, when confronted with the outcome of the Collectors-in-Conference decision as contained in the Madras Custom House Public Notice No. 211/81 and the assessment practice thereafter, he stated that he had nothing to urge against the revised assessment practice.
5. We have carefully considered the matter. On seeing the sheet of paper presented to us as a sample from the impugned goods and considering that it was of a comparatively lighter substance (165.9 gms.), we hold that the impugned paper was coated art paper and not coated art board. We are confident that the Collectors-in-Conference who too came to a similar conclusion would have had the benefit of much wider trade inquiries than those got made by the Assistant Collector in this case. In any case, (he nature and content of the Assistant Collector's market inquiry is not on record and there is no evidence to show that the appellants were confronted with his market inquiry report before he passed the impugned order-in-original. Accordingly, we agree with the appellants, allow their appeal and direct that consequential relief be granted to the appellants.