1995 (6) TMI 107 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of items described in the bill of entry as diesel engine and generator.
2. Classification of goods imported subsequently as accessories and spare parts of the diesel generating set.
3. Validity of the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) without remanding the case for de novo adjudication.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Items Described in the Bill of Entry as Diesel Engine and Generator:
The primary issue was whether the items described in the bill of entry as diesel engine and generator could be classified as a diesel generating set under Chapter Heading 85.01(1) or should be classified separately under Tariff Heading 84.06 and 85.01(1) respectively. The appellants argued that the diesel engine and generator, when combined, constitute a single diesel generating set and should be classified under Chapter Heading 85.01(1). However, the Customs authorities classified the diesel engine under Chapter Heading 84.06 and the generator under Chapter Heading 85.01(1), based on the separate descriptions and values provided in the bill of entry and invoices. The Tribunal upheld the Customs authorities' classification, emphasizing that the diesel engine and generator were imported separately and should be classified on their individual merits.

2. Classification of Goods Imported Subsequently as Accessories and Spare Parts of the Diesel Generating Set:
The second issue involved whether the goods imported subsequently could be classified as accessories and spare parts of the diesel generating set under Customs Tariff Heading 85.01(1). The appellants contended that the subsequent imports were essential components for the operation of the diesel generating set and should be classified as such. However, the Customs authorities and the Tribunal noted that the subsequent imports were invoiced separately with individual values and were not explicitly claimed as accessories and spare parts in the bill of entry. The Tribunal concluded that the items should be classified on their individual merits, as there was no sufficient evidence to co-relate them as accessories and spare parts of the previously imported diesel generating set.

3. Validity of the Order Passed by the Collector (Appeals) Without Remanding the Case for De Novo Adjudication:
The appellants argued that the Collector (Appeals) should have remanded the case for de novo adjudication, as the initial order was passed without affording them an opportunity to be heard by the second Assistant Collector. The Tribunal examined the order of the Collector (Appeals) and found that the Collector had considered the merits of the case and the relevant provisions of the Accessories (Condition) Rules, 1963. The Tribunal held that the Collector (Appeals) had not given any impression of remanding the case and had validly rejected the appeal based on the evidence and legal provisions. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Collector (Appeals) and rejected the appeal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the classification of the diesel engine and generator under separate tariff headings was correct and justified. The subsequent imports were to be classified on their individual merits, and the order of the Collector (Appeals) was valid. The appeal was rejected, upholding the impugned order.