1989 (9) TMI 241 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against rejection of refund claim and denial of Notification 314/85-Cus benefit for moulds for EVA and rubber.
- Interpretation of the description of goods in the invoice and Bill of Entry.
- Classification under Tariff Heading 84.06 and eligibility for duty exemption.
- Discrepancy in the description of goods in the contract and invoice.
- Determination of whether EVA qualifies as a plastic material.
- Consideration of industrial license terms and its relevance to the case.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the rejection of a refund claim and the denial of benefits under Notification 314/85-Cus for moulds for EVA and rubber. The Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) had upheld the rejection based on the description of the goods in the invoice as "moulds for EVA and rubber," indicating potential use for rubber, thus disqualifying them from the duty exemption under Chapter 84 of the Customs Tariff Act. The appellants argued that the word "and" in the description was a mistake and not part of the original contract, which specifically mentioned moulds for plastic footwear (EVA rubber).

The learned consultant for the appellants contended that EVA should be considered a plastic material, citing relevant literature and Customs Tariff sub-heading 3901.30. The Collector (Appeals) had introduced a new ground regarding the industrial license of the appellants, which included items beyond plastic footwear. However, the amendment to the license postdated the sales contract for the disputed consignment, supporting the appellants' claim for duty exemption for plastic footwear moulds.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found merit in the appeal. It noted that the description of Ethylene Vinyl Acetate Copolymers under the Customs Tariff Act supported the classification of EVA as a plastic material. The Tribunal disagreed with the Collector (Appeals)' interpretation of EVA as not being a plastic material based on the book "Plastic Materials" by Brydson. Additionally, the industrial license amendment did not impact the eligibility for duty exemption, as the sales contract was finalized before the license modification. Therefore, the appellants' claim for exemption was deemed well-founded, and the appeal was allowed, granting them the benefit of the duty exemption under Notification 314/85-Cus.