Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(3) This position has been also accepted and supported by the clarification given by the Office of the Director General of Foreign Trade New Delhi vide their letter dated 20-11-1998 which was produced even before the original authority in the proceedings culminating in this appeal. The opinion contained therein was that the items imported being cinematographic sound reproducing apparatus for projectors, they would be covered under sub-heading 90071102 of ITC (HS) classification. The said letter has been signed by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade but it emanates from the Office of the Directorate General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi.

18. We find that the appellants had applied to the DGFT, New Delhi for a clarification on these items' classification under ITC (HS) and the ITC Policy. Merely because the reply was signed by the JDGFT, its validity cannot be discarded. The JDGFT is a Senior Officer in the office of the DGFT. The reply is from the DGFT as per the letter-head. Therefore, obviously the JDGFT has issued it acting in the office of DGFT as per their internal procedures. There are thousands of importers and exporters who apply for such clarifications to the DGFT. It sounds to reason that it would be physically impossible for one DGFT to personally sign replies to these apart from his numerous other responsibilities. Secondly, here there is no certification required of a named authority in the body of a fiscal notification concerning exemption from Customs duty. Such a clarification required from only a named authority is a different requirement than the issue of a clarification on import policy. Therefore, we cannot agree with ld. DR that the clarificatory letter needs to be rechecked by a reference to the DGFT on whether it reflects the opinion of DGFT as it is signed by JDGFT.

21. Since we do not find these items to be in the nature of mere accessories, therefore there is no need to consider the Accessory Rules under the Customs Act. This would be all the more so when ITC (HS) classification is to be considered.

22. We cannot also subscribe to the view that since cinematographic projector under Chapter 90 can be with or without sound, therefore sound processors would not fall under Chapter 90 at all. On the contrary, since Chapter 90 does not exclude sound projector, therefore sound processing equipment working only in conjunction with the sound projector (and not independently) would clearly fall under Chapter 90 as discussed above.