1983 (5) TMI 227 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of customs duty notifications for imported goods.
2. Application of retrospective effect of notifications.
3. Criteria for eligibility under specific customs duty exemptions.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the importation of aluminium foil laminated with polyethylene film, which was initially assessed under specific customs duty rates. The importers sought a refund based on various customs duty notifications to lower the duty rates applicable to their goods.

2. Initially, the appellants claimed a refund based on Notification No. 170/79-Cus., dated 24-7-1979. However, the Assistant Collector rejected the claim, stating that the notification could not be applied retrospectively. Subsequently, the appellants relied on Notification No. 67/79-Cus. and later on Notification No. 173/77-Cus. during the appeal and revision stages.

3. The Tribunal considered the eligibility criteria under Notification No. 173/77-Cus., which provided exemptions for aluminium manufactures containing more than 97% aluminium. The appellants argued that the purity of the aluminium portion in the laminated foil met the requirement, but the Department contended that the overall aluminium content of the laminate should be considered for eligibility.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the wording of the notification and concluded that while the laminated aluminium foils imported were assessed under the relevant heading for aluminium foil, the condition of more than 97% aluminium content applied to the entire laminate, not just the aluminium portion. As the appellants failed to demonstrate that the overall aluminium content exceeded 97%, they were deemed ineligible for relief under Notification No. 173/77-Cus.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, emphasizing that the appellants' original claim for lower duty rates remained consistent even when relying on different notifications. The decision was based on the specific criteria outlined in the customs duty notifications and the lack of evidence supporting the appellants' eligibility for the claimed exemptions.