1995 (7) TMI 193 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Classification of thinwalled bearings for customs duty under Item 34A vs. Item 68 of CET.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Classification of Thinwalled Bearings
The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of thinwalled bearings for customs duty purposes under Item 34A of the Central Excise Tariff (CET) as opposed to Item 68 of CET. The importer sought reassessment of the thinwalled bearings under Tariff Item 68 for the purpose of Countervailing Duty (C.V. Duty), arguing that the dimensions of the bearings fell within the range specified in ISI Specification 4774/1968. The Assistant Collector initially held that the classification should be based on the trade name and use of the bearings, considering them as thinwalled bearings if used as motor vehicle parts. However, the Learned Collector reversed this decision, classifying the bearings as "Plain Shaft Bearings" under 84.63(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and subject to C.V.D. under Item 34A of CET.

Issue 2: Legal Precedents and Tribunal Rulings
During the proceedings, the importer did not appear despite several notices. The Departmental Representative (DR) cited previous Tribunal rulings, specifically the cases of M/s. G.M.C. Bros. & Co. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay and Collector of Customs, Bombay v. M/s. Kwality Laminators, to support the classification of the imported item under Item 34A of CET for C.V. Duty. The Tribunal, after detailed consideration, confirmed the classification under Item 34A, emphasizing that the ISI Specifications were relevant for quality but did not change the name of the goods. The Tribunal applied the principles established in the aforementioned cases to uphold the classification of the goods under Item 34A and not under Item 68 of CET for C.V. Duty.

Conclusion:
Based on the legal precedents and the Tribunal's analysis, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed, determining that the goods should be classified under Item 34A of CET for the purpose of C.V. Duty. The judgment reaffirmed the significance of trade names, end-use considerations, and established legal principles in determining the classification of goods for customs duty purposes.