1986 (10) TMI 198 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of goods described as "forgings for motorcycles-semi-finished connecting rods forgings for motorcycles."
2. Whether c.v. duty is leviable on the goods under Tariff Item 27(b) of CET.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Classification of Goods
The appeal involved a dispute over the correct classification of goods, specifically "forgings for motorcycles-semi-finished connecting rods forgings for motorcycles." The Customs authorities initially assessed the goods under Tariff Heading 84.06 of CTA 1975 along with Tariff Item 27(b) of CET for basic Customs duty and c.v. duty. However, the appellants sought a refund and argued for the assessment of the goods under heading 76.08/16 of CTA, contending that no c.v. duty should be levied. The Assistant Collector of Customs rejected the refund claim, stating that the goods were specific parts of motor-cycles and correctly assessed under Tariff Heading 84.06. The Appellate Collector of Customs upheld this decision. The Tribunal, considering a previous order related to the same appellants, held that the goods should be classified under Tariff Heading 76.08/16 of CTA, leading to a refund for the appellants on this basis.

Issue 2: C.V. Duty Leviability
Regarding the question of c.v. duty, the appellants' consultant argued that the scope of Tariff Item 27(b) of CET, which covers "plates, sheets, circles, strips, shapes, and sections," does not extend to forgings of aluminum. They relied on a clarificatory letter from the Central Board of Excise & Customs to support their position. However, the Revenue's representative contended that forgings of aluminum fall under the definition of "shapes and sections" in Tariff Item 27(b) and are liable for c.v. duty. The Tribunal disagreed with the appellants, stating that the expression "shapes and sections in any form or size" in Tariff Item 27(b) is broad enough to include forgings of aluminum. The Tribunal rejected the distinction between primary and secondary articles of aluminum based on the clarificatory letter, emphasizing that the purpose was to extend the scope of the Tariff Entry. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled against the appellants' argument on the leviability of c.v. duty.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by classifying the goods under Tariff Heading 76.08/16 for basic Customs duty but upheld the levy of c.v. duty on the goods under Tariff Item 27(b) of CET.