1986 (8) TMI 331 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported surface plates under the correct tariff heading.
2. Determination of whether the surface plates are parts or accessories of the hydraulic press.
3. Applicability of previous tribunal decisions and tariff advices to the current case.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Imported Surface Plates:
The respondents imported stainless steel surface plates and disputed the classification of these goods under heading 73.15(2) of the Customs Tariff Act (CTA) 75, which attracts a duty of 220% plus CVD. They argued that the goods should be classified under heading 84.59(1), which pertains to machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions. The Assistant Collector of Customs initially classified the goods under heading 73.15(2), considering them as polished stainless steel plates. However, the Collector of Customs (Appeals) overturned this decision, classifying the goods under heading 84.59(1) as functional parts of the hot presses.

2. Determination of Whether the Surface Plates are Parts or Accessories of the Hydraulic Press:
The primary contention was whether the surface plates should be classified as parts or accessories of the hydraulic press. The Department argued that the surface plates were accessories since the hydraulic press could operate without them, thus classifying them under heading 73.15(2). Conversely, the respondents contended that the surface plates were essential parts of the hydraulic press, necessary for its operation, and should be classified under heading 84.59(1). The Tribunal noted that the surface plates were described as spare parts for maintenance in the import license and bill of entry, and their function was integral to the operation of the hydraulic press. The plates were not merely polished stainless steel sheets but were specifically designed and fabricated with lugs for clamping, making them essential parts of the machinery.

3. Applicability of Previous Tribunal Decisions and Tariff Advices:
The Tribunal considered the decision in the case of Bakelite Hylam Limited, where similar goods were classified based on their function as moulds rather than under a general heading for steel plates. The Tribunal emphasized the functional aspect of the goods, concluding that the surface plates were essential for the operation of the hydraulic press and not merely accessories. Additionally, the Tribunal referred to the Conference Tariff Advice No. 30, which classified similar caul plates under heading 84.59(1), further supporting the respondents' classification.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the surface plates were essential parts of the hydraulic press and not accessories. The plates' specific design, including the welding of lugs and their functional role in the manufacturing process, justified their classification under heading 84.59(1). The review show cause notice was dropped, and the appeal was dismissed, affirming the classification of the goods under heading 84.59(1).