2007 (1) TMI 365 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Claim for concessional assessment of imported gold mountings under Notification No. 62 of 2004 - Rejection of claim based on interpretation of Rule 2(a) of General Rules for the Interpretation of the 1st schedule to the Customs Act - Dispute over whether the mountings constitute jewellery or not.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of studded jewellery, imported gold mountings for use in such jewellery and sought concessional assessment under Notification No. 62 of 2004. The claim was denied, asserting that the imported items were gold jewellery, not gold, as per Rule 2(a) of the Customs Act's General Rules for Interpretation. The appellant argued that the mountings were distinct from jewellery, and the essential character of jewellery arose from the embedded diamonds or stones, not the mountings themselves. Additionally, reference was made to a circular by the Central Board of Excise & Customs clarifying that mountings of gold were covered under the notification in question.

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the mountings did not possess the essential character of jewellery, which primarily came from the embedded items. It was emphasized that the circular from the Central Board of Excise & Customs supported the appellant's position by stating that gold and silver mountings were eligible for concessional import duty under the notification. Contrarily, the respondent argued that the mountings, resembling jewellery in shape, should be treated as jewellery under the Rule.

The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument, holding that studded jewellery derived its character from the embedded items, not the mountings themselves. Consequently, Rule 2(a) was deemed inapplicable in this case. The Tribunal also noted the clarification in the circular regarding the eligibility of gold and silver mountings for concessional import duty. Consequently, the appellant's claim aligned with the circular's provisions. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the stay application, waived the pre-deposit requirement, and stayed recovery pending the appeal's disposal, based on the findings and positions discussed during the hearing.