Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
International Linkers (India) vs Collector Of Customs on 18 September, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1989(42)ELT491(TRI-DEL)
ORDER D.C. Mandal, Member (T)
1. The appellants imported a consignment of self-adhesive tapes and claimed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 342/76-Cus. as amended. The goods were assessed by the Customs House under Heading 39.01/06 of the CTA. 1975 without allowing the benefit of the exemption notification. An appeal filed against the assessment was rejected by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) in the impugned order. Hence this appeal.
2. The Collector (Appeals) has held, inter alia, that:
"Artificial resins and basic material, Cellulose, Esters and Ethers and articles thereof are classifiable under Chapter 39 of CTA'75. Serial No. 6 of the exemption notification also pertains to these goods. Now I find that the appellants have not placed on record, any evidence to show that Self-Adhesive Tapes imported by them are products of polymerisation or co-polymerisation. This is very material since the grant of exemption depends thereupon. The appellants could have produced this evidence at the time of personal hearing which they failed to do so. In their appeal memorandum nowhere the composition of the Self-Adhesive Tapes is shown. Merely on the affirmation that the goods fall under the Serial No. 6, the appellants cannot seek any relief. I find that the appellants have not been able to substantiate their plea for grant of exemption under the quoted notification."
3. We have heard Shri N.C. Sogani, Consultant for the appellants and Shri A.S. Sunder Rajan, JDR for the respondent. Both of them have stated that there is no dispute in the classification of the goods under Tariff Heading 39.01/06. The dispute is about the admissibility of the benefit of Notification No. 342/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976. Shri Sogani has argued that sample from the consignment was tested in the Customs House Laboratory and the test report showed that the goods were composed of Polyvinyl Chloride. Polyvinyl Chloride is covered by Serial No. 6 of the Notification and hence concessional rate of 50% of the standard rate of duty under the notification in question was admissible. On the other hand, Shri Sunder Rajan has argued that Item 6(i) of the Notification relates to Polyvinyl Chloride in primary form. The imported goods are not in primary form, but are finished articles. So, they will not fall under this item of the notification.
4. We have considered the arguments of both sides. Item 6 of the Notification No. 342/76-Cus. reads as follows:-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sl. No. Description of goods Heading No. in the First Schedule to the Extent of Tariff Customs Tariff Act, Concession 1975
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. xxxx xxxx xxxx
2. XX xxxx xxxx XXX xxxxx XXX xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx
6. Polymerisation and Co-
polymerisation products(for ex-
ample, Polyethylene, Polyte-
trahaloethylenes polyisobutylene, polystryene, polyvinyl chloride, polyvinyl acetate, polyvinyl chloroacetate and other polyvinyl derivatives, polyacrylic and Polymethacrylic derivatives, cumarone-indene resins):
(i) Polyvinyl chloride: 39.01/06 50% of the standard
rate of duty
(a) Liquid;
(b) Powder and
grains;
(c) Other forms
(ii) Polyvinyl acetate 39.01/06 -do-
(iii) Polystyrene 39.01/06 -do-
(a) Liquid;
(b) Powder and
grains;
(c) Other forms
XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
12. xxxx XXXX XXXX
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Serial No. 6(i) provides for Polyvinyl chloride, (a) Liquid, (b) Powder and grains and (c) Other forms. The item does not say that only primary form of Polyvinyl chloride is covered by this item nor the intention of this Notification is to give exemption only to primary products and not the finished articles. Item 7 of the notification mentions tyres, tubes and lyre flaps etc. The Item 8 mentions Plywood Veneered panels. This shows that the finished articles are also covered by the notification. Item 6(i)(c) is meant for "Other forms" of Polyvinyl chloride, i.e. other than liquid, powder and grains. In our opinion, in this background of the notification, the term "Other forms" appearing against Clause (c) of Item 6(i) would cover the finished article also. As the test report of the sample has shown the imported Self Adhesive Tapes to be composed of Polyvinyl chloride, the same are duly covered by Item 6(i)(c) of the notification in question. The Collector (Appeals) has rejected the claim of the appellants on the ground that they have not produced any evidence to show that the imported tapes are the products of polymerisation or co-polymerisation. Tariff Heading 39.01/06 provides for polymerisation or co-polymerisation products, one of which is polyvinyl chloride. The description against Item 6 of the notification is similar to that of Tariff Heading 39.01/06. The goods were assessed under Tariff Heading 39.01/06. Haying assessed the goods under this Tariff Heading, it is not justified, for the purpose of extending the benefit of exemption notification, to raise a doubt as to whether the goods are actually polymerisation or co-polymerisation products. Having accepted the goods as polymerisation/co-polymerisation products for the purpose of classification under Heading 39.01/06 denial of benefit of notification is not justified, particularly when the test report of the sample has shown that the goods are composed of Polyvinyl chloride.
5. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.