1982 (12) TMI 203 - AT - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the imported ram for the Steeping Press under the appropriate Customs Tariff Heading.
2. Applicability of Heading No. 84.36.
3. Applicability of Heading No. 84.38.
4. Applicability of sub-heading (2) of Heading No. 84.59.
5. Applicability of Interpretative Rule 3(c).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of the imported ram for the Steeping Press under the appropriate Customs Tariff Heading:
The primary issue revolves around the correct classification of the imported "main ram for steeping press" under the Customs Tariff Schedule. The appellants argued for classification under Heading No. 84.36 or 84.38, while the Department maintained that it should be classified under Heading No. 84.59(1). The Tribunal concluded that the imported ram is best classified under Heading No. 84.59(1) as "machines and mechanical appliances, having individual functions, not falling within any other Heading of this Chapter."

2. Applicability of Heading No. 84.36:
The appellants contended that the Steeping Press, of which the ram is a part, should fall under Heading No. 84.36 as "machines for extruding man-made textiles." They argued that the entire plant, including the Steeping Press, should be considered a composite machine under Note 3 to Section XVI. However, the Tribunal observed that the Steeping Press is a distinct machine and not a composite machine for extruding man-made textiles. Therefore, classification under Heading No. 84.36 was ruled out.

3. Applicability of Heading No. 84.38:
The appellants also argued that if the Steeping Press is not considered under Heading No. 84.36, it should be classified under Heading No. 84.38 as "parts and accessories suitable for use solely or principally with machines falling within Heading No. 84.36." The Tribunal rejected this argument, noting that since the Steeping Press does not fall under Heading No. 84.36, its parts cannot be classified under Heading No. 84.38. Additionally, the Tribunal agreed with the Department's argument that the Steeping Press could not be considered an "auxiliary machine" under Heading No. 84.38.

4. Applicability of sub-heading (2) of Heading No. 84.59:
The appellants argued for classification under sub-heading (2) of Heading No. 84.59, which covers "machinery for treating metals, wood or similar materials." The Tribunal noted that this argument was raised for the first time at the revision application stage and emphasized the importance of raising all relevant grounds before lower authorities. On merits, the Tribunal found that the process involved in the Steeping Press did not constitute "treatment" of wood pulp and that wood pulp is a distinct commodity from wood. Thus, classification under sub-heading (2) of Heading No. 84.59 was ruled out.

5. Applicability of Interpretative Rule 3(c):
The appellants invoked Interpretative Rule 3(c), which suggests classification under the Heading occurring latest among those equally meriting consideration when goods cannot be classified by other Rules. The Tribunal found that sub-heading (2) of Heading No. 84.59 did not equally merit consideration with sub-heading (1) and thus, Rule 3(c) was inapplicable.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the imported ram for the Steeping Press is correctly classifiable under Heading No. 84.59(1) as "machines and mechanical appliances, having individual functions, not falling within any other Heading of this Chapter." The appeal was therefore rejected.

← Previous Next →