1982 (6) TMI 249 - CGOVT - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Correct rate of duty applicable to imported heat-resisting steel/stainless steel.
2. Classification of goods as stainless steel sheets or strips.
3. Applicability of ISI definitions for classification.
4. Re-assessment claims based on Notification No. 43-Cus. dated 29-5-71 and Notification No. 24-Cus. dated 1-3-73.
5. Validity of the 1934 Board's Ruling on classification.
6. Trade and commercial parlance in classification.
7. Previous judgments and orders regarding similar classifications.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Correct Rate of Duty Applicable to Imported Heat-Resisting Steel/Stainless Steel:
The dispute revolves around the correct rate of duty for heat-resisting steel/stainless steel imported between 1973 and 1975. The customs authorities classified the goods as stainless steel sheets under Item No. 63 (20-A) ICT, assessing them to duty accordingly. The petitioners initially claimed re-assessment at a lower basic rate but later sought reclassification under Item 63(14) ICT to benefit from Notification No. 43-Cus. dated 29-5-71. Eventually, they conceded that the correct classification was under Item 63(20-A) ICT read with Notification No. 24-Cus., dated 1-3-73, which reduced the duty to 60% ad valorem.

2. Classification of Goods as Stainless Steel Sheets or Strips:
The crucial question is whether the goods should be classified as stainless steel sheets or strips. The petitioners argued that the goods were strips based on ISI definitions, which distinguish sheets and strips based on width and form (coils or straight lengths). The ISI definition states that strips can be of width more than 5 inches and are supplied in coils, whereas sheets are supplied in straight lengths. The Government of India accepted the ISI definitions as the basis for classification, noting that the goods were in coil form and thus should be classified as strips.

3. Applicability of ISI Definitions for Classification:
The ISI definitions were deemed reliable for determining the classification of the goods. The Government of India observed that neither the erstwhile Indian Customs Tariff nor the Indian Tariff Act, 1934, provided definitions for 'sheets' and 'strips.' The ISI definitions were preferred, supported by the Supreme Court judgment in the Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd., which emphasized the trade and commercial parlance in India.

4. Re-assessment Claims Based on Notification No. 43-Cus. Dated 29-5-71 and Notification No. 24-Cus. Dated 1-3-73:
The petitioners initially claimed re-assessment under Notification No. 43-Cus., but later sought re-assessment under Notification No. 24-Cus., which reduced the duty to 60% ad valorem for stainless steel strips. The Government of India accepted this claim, provided the goods were classified as strips based on ISI definitions.

5. Validity of the 1934 Board's Ruling on Classification:
The petitioners argued that the 1934 Board's Ruling, which classified goods based on width, was obsolete. The Government of India agreed, noting that trade meanings change over time and the 1934 ruling could not reflect current trade parlance. The ISI definitions were considered more relevant and reliable.

6. Trade and Commercial Parlance in Classification:
The Government of India emphasized the importance of trade and commercial parlance in classification, as highlighted by the Supreme Court in M/s. Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India. The classification should reflect how goods are understood in trade and commerce. The ISI definitions were considered reflective of trade parlance in India.

7. Previous Judgments and Orders Regarding Similar Classifications:
The petitioners cited several previous judgments and orders supporting their claim that the goods should be classified as strips. These included a Supreme Court judgment, a Madras High Court judgment, and an order-in-revision by the Government of India. The Government of India considered these precedents and found them supportive of the petitioners' claims.

Conclusion:
The Government directed re-assessment of the goods as stainless steel strips under Item No. 63 (20-A) ICT read with Notification No. 24-Cus., dated 1-3-73, for the consignments specifically covered in the judgment. The petitioners were granted consequential refunds. For other consignments, re-assessment was directed based on scrutiny of relevant import documents, applying ISI definitions and principles discussed in the judgment. All 13 revision applications were disposed of accordingly.

← Previous Next →