1983 (4) TMI 273 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over countervailing duty on imported goods described as "Strato Glass."
2. Rejection of refund claim by Assistant Collector and Appellate Collector.
3. Revision petition filed before the Central Government challenging the rejection of the appeal.
4. Classification of goods under Item 40(7) of the Indian Customs Tariff and Item 16B of the Central Excise Tariff.
5. Applicability of exemption notification under Item 16B of the Central Excise Tariff.

Analysis:
The appellant contested the imposition of countervailing duty on imported goods known as "Strato Glass," claiming they did not fall under any heading of the Central Excise Tariff (CET) and thus, no countervailing duty should be levied. The refund claim was initially rejected by the Assistant Collector and subsequently by the Appellate Collector, who upheld the assessment under Item 40(7) of the Customs Tariff for "Wall Board of Wood Fibre." The appellant's argument that the goods were "Strato Glass" exclusively used for Boeing Aeroplanes was not substantiated before the authorities. The Appellate Collector noted that the goods were physically examined and found to be "Wall Board of Wood Fibre," leading to the correct assessment under Item 16B of the CET for countervailing duty.

The appellant then filed a revision petition before the Central Government, which was transferred to the Appellate Tribunal. During the hearing, the appellant's representative argued that no countervailing duty should be charged as the goods were used for lining Boeing Planes and referred to an exemption notification under Item 16B of the Central Excise Tariff. However, it was revealed that the appellant did not raise these arguments earlier, and the goods were identified as laminated wall board used for lining cargo cabins. The Departmental Representative emphasized that once goods were classified under Tariff Entry 40(7) for basic customs duty, their classification under Item 16B of the CET for countervailing duty was appropriate.

The Tribunal carefully considered the contentions and affirmed that the goods were correctly assessed under Item 40(7) of the Customs Tariff as "Wall boards of wood fibre." The appellant's acceptance of this classification precluded challenging it for countervailing duty purposes. The plea regarding the exemption notification for unveneered particle board was dismissed as it was not raised earlier and lacked factual support. The goods were deemed to fall under Item 16B(ii) of the CET as laminated wall board, justifying the imposition of countervailing duty. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the levy of countervailing duty on the imported goods described as "Strato Glass."