9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Classification of imported technical/engineering drawings for duty purposes under Heading No. 4901.90 or 4911.99.
The appeal in question revolved around the classification of imported technical/engineering drawings for duty purposes. The appellants contended that the photo-copies of technical/engineering drawings should be entitled to duty-free clearance under Heading No. 4901.90, while the Department argued that they should be chargeable to duty under 4911.99. The goods imported by the appellants were initially declared as "drawings in original form and manuals." However, upon examination, it was discovered that the goods were merely photostat copies of drawings. The Adjudicating Authority, following a previous decision by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), classified both the drawings and manuals under Heading No. 49.11. The issue of valuation was also addressed by the Collector (Appeals) but was not contested in the present appeal. Regarding the classification of the drawings, the appellants had claimed their classification under 49.01/49.06. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application of 49.06, stating that it only covered original drawings, photographs on sensitized paper, or carbon copies. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the classification of engineering drawings under Heading 49.11 after considering various arguments presented. In the appeal, the appellants reiterated their arguments from the lower authorities, emphasizing the interpretation of Chapter Notes 4(a) regarding the classification of drawings under Heading 49.01. They argued that drawings with a relative text could be classified under 49.01, while those without text would fall under the residuary entry 49.11. The appellants also contended that any system of referencing suitable for binding should be covered under 49.01 and that all printed matters would fall under that heading unless covered by a more specific one. The Collector (Appeals) extensively discussed these points in the decision. The Tribunal agreed with the Collector (Appeals) in the Order-in-Appeal, emphasizing the interpretation of the term "drawings" in Chapter Note 4(a) for classification under Heading 49.01. The Tribunal analyzed the flaws in the appellants' arguments, noting that the term "drawings" should be interpreted in conjunction with "Works of Art," indicating a reference to artistic drawings rather than technical/engineering drawings. The arguments about text-bearing drawings and numbering of pages were also addressed, with the Tribunal finding them unsound based on the Chapter Note's language. Additionally, the Tribunal referenced a previous decision involving technical literature being bound in book form, distinguishing it from the present case. The argument that Heading 49.11 covered only advertising material was refuted, clarifying that technical drawings were more akin to "designs" covered under a different sub-heading. The Tribunal also highlighted that the imported drawings were considered "printed," including photo-copies, but were not classified as literary works, text-books, technical publications, or books of reference, as specified under Heading 49.01. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Appeal, affirming the correct classification of the goods under Heading 49.11. The decision on the classification of manuals and valuation, which was not challenged by the Department, was also upheld. Consequently, the appeal was rejected.
|
