2005 (7) TMI 239 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported equipment.
2. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 11/97-Cus., as amended by Notification No. 55/97-Cus.
3. Valuation of imported equipment.
4. Jurisdiction and authority of the Commissioner (Appeals) to entertain the appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Imported Equipment:
The primary issue was whether the imported "Heavy Duty Platform Ringer Crane" and "8 nos. SPMTs with 5 power packs" should be classified under Chapter 8426.19 (cranes) or under Chapter 8704.90 (trailers) of the Customs Tariff. The Revenue argued that the crane was a standalone unit that required separate trailers for mobility and thus should not be classified as a mobile crane. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal found that the crane and the SPMTs were imported together and functioned as an integral unit, used for lifting and handling at different refinery sites. The Tribunal concluded that the crane, along with the SPMTs, should be classified under Heading 84.26 as a mobile crane, based on the HSN notes and the purpose of the import.

2. Eligibility for Exemption under Notification No. 11/97-Cus., as Amended by Notification No. 55/97-Cus:
The Revenue contended that the crane was not a mobile crane and thus not eligible for the exemption. However, the Tribunal found that since the crane was classified as a mobile crane under Heading 84.26, it was eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 11/97-Cus. The Tribunal also rejected the distinction made by the Revenue between erection equipment and material handling equipment, noting that the imported crane was used for handling and erecting heavy materials at the refinery site.

3. Valuation of Imported Equipment:
The Revenue challenged the valuation declared by the importer, arguing that the declared value was not genuine and inadequate. They relied on a machinery expert's report comparing the crane with a similar model, the Crawler Crane CC-12600, and suggested a higher valuation. The Tribunal, however, found that the comparison was not appropriate as it was based solely on lifting capacity without considering other factors such as model differences and usage. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings on valuation, which were based on the declared invoice value and found no evidence of extra payments or undervaluation.

4. Jurisdiction and Authority of the Commissioner (Appeals) to Entertain the Appeal:
The Revenue argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have entertained the appeal against the final assessment of the Bill of Entry. The Tribunal rejected this argument, citing the Larger Bench decision in CC v. Arvind Export and the Supreme Court decision in Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. CC (Preventive), which upheld the right to appeal against an order of assessment on a Bill of Entry. The Tribunal found no reason to uphold the Revenue's grievance regarding the jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals).

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order on all counts, including the classification of the crane and SPMTs under Heading 84.26, the eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 11/97-Cus., and the declared valuation of the imported equipment. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and rejected the Revenue's grounds for appeal.