9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Classification of imported goods under the Customs Tariff Act. 2. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 394-Cus., dated 2-8-1976. Analysis: 1. The case involved the classification of two imported Marposs Minialsar In-process Gauges under the Customs Tariff Act. The appellants claimed that the gauges should be classified as checking instruments under Heading No. 90.28(4) read with 90.16(2) instead of electrical measuring instruments under Heading No. 90.28(4) read with 90.16(1). They contended that the duty rate applicable to checking instruments was lower. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claims, stating that the gauges were measuring instruments and did not fall under the category of checking instruments. The Assistant Collector also denied the benefit of a concessional duty rate under an exemption notification. 2. The appellants appealed to the Collector of Customs (Appeals) in Calcutta, arguing that even if the gauges could be considered both measuring and checking instruments, they should be classified under Heading 90.16(2) due to Interpretative Rule 3(c). The appellants also claimed that if the gauges were indeed measuring instruments, the duty rate should be as per the exemption notification. However, the Collector (Appeals) rejected all contentions put forth by the appellants. 3. During the hearing, the appellants were absent, but their request for a decision on merits was considered. The Senior Departmental Representative acknowledged that the goods might be eligible for exemption under Notification No. 394-Cus., dated 2-8-1976, citing a Bombay High Court decision supporting a similar claim for exemption. The Tribunal reviewed the Bombay High Court judgment and found it applicable to the present case. The Tribunal held that the imported goods were eligible for exemption under the said notification. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the appellants were granted the alternative prayer for exemption.
|
