2008 (11) TMI 150 - AT - Customs

Benefit of notification No. 21/02-Cus. was denied on the ground that X-ray Shoe Inspection System imported by the appellants is used to inspect unseen and intangible nails of sole of shoes, boots and high heels. X-ray Shoe Inspection System imported by the appellants cannot be considered as Viewing Box for assessing visible damage for the shoes held that machine is for inspection of unseen presence of nails and needle at needle work area, by way of X-ray therefore, machine in question is not entitled for benefit of notification

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of benefit of Notification No. 21/2002 for X-ray Shoe Inspection System.

Analysis:
The appellants imported a machine and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 21/02-Cus. which provides a concessional rate of duty for goods designed for use in the leather or footwear industry. The benefit was denied as the X-ray Shoe Inspection System was used to inspect unseen nails in shoes, boots, and high heels, not visible damage. The appellants argued that the machine also inspects unseen nails and needles, qualifying as a Viewing Box for assessing visible damage, citing relevant legal precedents and expert opinions. The Revenue contended that the benefit is only for a Viewing Box for visible damage, not for inspecting unseen elements like nails and needles.

The Tribunal found that the notification specifically mentions concessional duty for "Viewing Box for assessing visible damage." The appellants described the imported item as an X-ray Shoe Inspection System used to inspect for unseen nails, which does not align with the criteria of a Viewing Box for visible damage. The Tribunal differentiated this case from a legal precedent involving reed switches, emphasizing that the current machine does not fall under the notification's scope. Expert opinions clarified that a viewing box for visible damage does not include X-ray provisions, and the machine in question does not meet the notification's requirements. Citing another legal precedent, the Tribunal emphasized that to claim an exemption, one must clearly fall under the provision, and any doubts benefit the State. As the X-ray Shoe Inspection System does not qualify as a Viewing Box for assessing visible damage, the Tribunal upheld the denial of benefits and dismissed the appeal.