2003 (12) TMI 647 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Misdeclaration of fabric dyeing machine.
2. Reliance on expert opinions.
3. Interpretation of the term "dye kitchen" in the context of the notification.

Detailed Analysis:

Misdeclaration of Fabric Dyeing Machine:
The appellants were accused of misdeclaring a fabric dyeing machine as a dyeing machine complete with a dye kitchen and accessories. The allegation was based on the Bill of Entry No. 320892, dated 6-3-2003, filed by M/s. Gowtham Processors, Tirupur. The Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, in Orders-in-Original No. 9 and 10/2003, dated 6-6-2003, denied the exemption claimed under Notification No. 21/02-Cus., dated 1-3-2002, which pertains to "Fabric dyeing machine complete with dye kitchen and accessories."

Reliance on Expert Opinions:
The Revenue obtained opinions from the Textile Commissioner, Mumbai, SGS India Pvt. Ltd., and South India Textile Research Association (SITRA). The appellants also presented an opinion from Dr. N. Selva Kumar, Assistant Professor of Textile Technology, Anna University. The Commissioner relied solely on the Textile Commissioner's opinion, dismissing the opinions from SITRA and SGS India Pvt. Ltd. as ambiguous and lacking specific details such as model numbers and supplier names. The appellants argued that the Textile Commissioner's opinion was outdated and based on a different concept of dye kitchens as separate plants, not integrated parts of dyeing machines.

Interpretation of "Dye Kitchen":
The crux of the dispute revolved around whether the imported machine met the description of "Fabric dyeing machine complete with dye kitchen and accessories" as per the notification. The appellants contended that their machine, a 'DMS 11 Jumbo Jet Flow RDS Dyeing Machine,' included integrated facilities for dye preparation and supply, thus qualifying for the exemption. They argued that the primary machine is a dyeing machine, and the dye kitchen is an integral part of it, not a separate plant. The Commissioner's reliance on the Textile Commissioner's report, which did not examine the specific machine in question, was deemed erroneous.

Examination of Other Opinions:
The Deputy Director of Textiles Committee clarified that a dye kitchen is a special preparatory provision for preparing dyes and chemicals and injecting them into the dyeing machine under controlled conditions. SITRA confirmed that dye mixing tanks are part of the machine and may not always be listed in invoices but are detailed in catalogues. SGS India Pvt. Ltd. conducted a detailed inspection and confirmed that the machine in question included a dye kitchen and accessories, capable of performing all required functions.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner's reliance on the Textile Commissioner's opinion, which did not examine the specific machine, was misplaced. The detailed opinions from SITRA, SGS India Pvt. Ltd., and the Deputy Director of Textiles Committee provided a comprehensive understanding that the imported machine met the notification's requirements. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants had made a strong case, and the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeals with consequential relief as per law.