1996 (4) TMI 192 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported goods under customs tariff headings 73.13 and 84.31; Identification of wearing plates as parts of machinery; Rejection of refund claim by Assistant Collector and Collector (Appeals); Interpretation of Tariff provisions on identifiable parts of machinery.

The judgment pertains to an appeal against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) regarding the classification of imported "wearing plates" under customs tariff headings. The appellants, manufacturers of hard boards, imported spare parts claimed to be parts of their pulp making machinery. The dispute arose as the Customs House classified the wearing plates under Heading 73.13, but the appellants contended they should be classified under Heading 84.31 as parts of machinery for making cellulosic pulp. The appellants submitted a drawing of the machinery to support their claim.

The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim stating that the wearing plates were not identifiable as machinery parts based on the examination report. The Collector (Appeals) also rejected the claim, emphasizing the lack of identification of the imported items as parts of pulp making machinery. The appellants argued that the wearing plates were tailor-made to fit the machinery and required bending at a specific angle for installation, making them identifiable parts of the machinery.

The Tribunal considered the Tariff's distinction between identifiable goods and identifiable parts of machinery. The Tribunal noted that the imported wearing plates lacked specific identification marks or designs linking them directly to the machinery. Despite the appellants' drawing, which did not explicitly mention the wearing plates, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of goods being identifiable as machinery parts at the time of importation.

The Tribunal highlighted the absence of technical literature or additional material supporting the appellants' claim, despite multiple opportunities provided. The Tribunal ultimately held that the appellants failed to substantiate their claim that the wearing plates were identifiable parts of machinery at the time of importation. As the appellants did not avail themselves of the opportunities to provide further evidence, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to reject the refund claim, consequently dismissing the appeal.