1984 (3) TMI 247 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 35/79-Cus. and subsequent amendment.
2. Refund of customs duty on imported goods.
3. Effect of explanatory memorandum in Notification No. 129/80-Cus.
4. Dispute regarding the correct interpretation of "parts of any article falling under the headings" in the notification.

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved the interpretation of Notification No. 35/79-Cus. and its subsequent amendment by Notification No. 129/80-Cus. The Appellate Tribunal considered whether the parts imported by M/s. Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. qualified for exemption under the notifications based on the headings specified in the original and amended notifications.

2. M/s. Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. had imported goods under bill of entry No. D70 dated 1-2-1980 and applied for a refund of customs duty on three grounds. The Assistant Collector granted a partial refund on two grounds but rejected the claim related to Notification No. 35/79-Cus., leading to the appeal.

3. The representative of the appellant argued that the subsequent amendment in Notification No. 129/80-Cus. clarified the scope of the exemption to cover all parts, regardless of falling under the same headings as the article itself. The Tribunal considered this argument and the effect of the explanatory memorandum in the amendment.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the wording of the notifications and the interpretation of "parts of any article falling under the headings." It disagreed with the Custom House's interpretation that the parts themselves must fall under the listed headings, asserting that only the article for which the parts are meant needs to fall under the specified headings for exemption eligibility.

5. The Tribunal remanded the case to the Assistant Collector to verify if the articles for which the parts were intended fell under the listed headings, emphasizing the distinction between the article and the part imported for it in determining eligibility for exemption under the notifications.

6. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that new claims for refund on auxiliary duty and countervailing duty were not presented before the Assistant Collector and thus could not be entertained during the appeal. The appellant was advised to submit these claims to the Assistant Collector separately if desired.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, focusing on the interpretation of the notifications, refund claims, and the Tribunal's decision to remand the case for further verification.