2006 (8) TMI 83 - AT - Customs

Classification As per the appellant the goods imported is classified under heading 8502.13 but on scrutiny find that the goods are only control panel and classify under 85.37 Authority after considering the fact can t allow the appeal

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of imported goods under the Customs Tariff.
2. Application of previous judgments to the current case.
3. Interpretation of the agreement for total import value.
4. Consideration of Electric Control Panel as an integral component.
5. Allegations of under-invoicing and adherence to the Letter of Credit.
6. Relevance of previous Tribunal decisions and the Apex Court's ruling.

Issue 1: Classification of imported goods under the Customs Tariff
The dispute arose regarding the classification of imported goods, specifically a 'Control Panel,' under the Customs Tariff. The appellants claimed assessment under heading 8502.13 for a 'diesel generating set,' while the authorities contended that the goods fell under heading 85.37. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs rejected the appellant's claim, citing clearance of main generator shipments under heading 8502.13 and the specific classification of electric control panels under heading 85.37. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the present appeal.

Issue 2: Application of previous judgments to the current case
The appellants argued that the Electric Control Panel was an integral component of the Diesel Generator Set and should be classified under Chapter Heading 8502. They relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharp Business Machines Pvt. Ltd. and other Tribunal pronouncements. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the intent should have been declared at the time of the first import and that subsequent claims were not sustainable. The appellants challenged this decision based on the agreement's total import value and the necessity of the Electric Control Panel for the functioning of the Diesel Generator Set.

Issue 3: Interpretation of the agreement for total import value
The appellants contended that the Electric Control Panel should not be separately classified as an electric part but as part of the machine already cleared under the Customs Tariff. They emphasized that all three imports constituted a complete equipment under the agreement's total import value, and the Diesel Generator Set required the Electric Control Panel to function. They argued against the Commissioner's decision not to consider the agreement's value and the interconnected nature of the imported components.

Issue 4: Consideration of Electric Control Panel as an integral component
The appellants stressed that the Electric Control Panel was essential for the operation of the Diesel Generator Set and should have been classified under Chapter Heading 8502. They highlighted the contractual obligations, absence of under-invoicing allegations, and adherence to the irrevocable Letter of Credit as supporting factors for their claim. They urged the authorities to set aside the impugned order based on the critical role of the Electric Control Panel in the functioning of the imported machinery.

Issue 5: Allegations of under-invoicing and adherence to the Letter of Credit
The appellants refuted any allegations of under-invoicing and emphasized their compliance with the irrevocable Letter of Credit under the agreement. They argued that the absence of additional remittance and under-invoicing accusations supported their position that the Electric Control Panel should be assessed as part of the Diesel Generator Set under Chapter Heading 8502.

Issue 6: Relevance of previous Tribunal decisions and the Apex Court's ruling
While the appellants relied on the Sharp Business Machines Pvt. Ltd. case and subsequent Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal differentiated the current case from the precedent. The Tribunal noted that the Apex Court's ruling in Sharp Business Machines Pvt. Ltd. did not directly address the classification and assessment of imports made on different Bills of Entry over time. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' assessment of the imported components, citing a reference answered by the Larger Bench that differentiated the Apex Court's ruling and guided their decision-making process.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appeal and upheld the assessment of the imported goods as components based on the lower authorities' findings and the differentiation made by the Larger Bench in a previous reference.