1983 (2) TMI 294 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Act - Heading 38.01/19(4) or Heading 68.01/16(1)

Analysis:
1. The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT New Delhi involved the classification of goods described as "Carbon Tubes" made of impervious or resin-impregnated artificial graphite for the manufacture of mechanical seals. The main question was whether these goods fell under Heading 38.01/19(4) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, relating to "Artificial Graphite," as argued by the appellants, or under Heading 68.01/16(1) as articles of mineral substances, as asserted by the Department.

2. The case was extensively argued, with both parties presenting their arguments and evidence. The appellants relied on trade catalogues, technical literature, and samples of the goods, while the Department produced documents from German suppliers. Explanatory notes from the CCCN were crucial in the discussions, with both sides emphasizing different aspects to support their positions.

3. The Department contended that the goods, being resin-impregnated artificial graphite, did not fall under Heading 38.01/19(4) for plain artificial graphite. However, the appellants argued that the impregnated artificial graphite was still covered under the same heading based on the Explanatory Note (b) under Heading 38.01 of the CCCN.

4. Another point of contention was whether the goods, though described as tubes, were actually cylinderical blocks or blanks. The appellants provided evidence from American and German suppliers' catalogues to support their claim that the goods were semi-manufactures of artificial graphite, not finished articles. They also highlighted the machine operations required to turn the goods into finished seal inserts.

5. After a thorough examination of all evidence and arguments, the Tribunal concluded that the subject goods were indeed blocks or blanks of resin-impregnated artificial graphite, falling within the scope of Chapter 38 of the Customs Tariff Act. The goods were considered semi-manufactures and correctly classifiable under Heading 38.01/19. As a result, the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants, granting them consequential relief.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the final decision in favor of the appellants.