2006 (7) TMI 51 - AT - Customs

Customs Notification no. 21/2002 grants exemption to tags, labels, printed bags, etc. Import of plastic bags which has been embossed with the words Bags Made in China . Note 2 to Chapter 49 clearly indicated that the term printing includes embossing. The same meaning is given in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary. Exemption is available.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of the term "printing" in a customs notification regarding the benefit of importation for specific goods embossed with a country of origin.
Applicability of Note 2 to Chapter 49 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, in determining the meaning of "printing" to include embossing.
Relevance of previous judgments by the Supreme Court and the Tribunal in similar cases to the current dispute.

Analysis:
The appeal in question concerns the interpretation of the term "printing" in a customs notification related to the benefit of importation for goods embossed with a specific country of origin. The appellant argued that embossing should be considered under the term "printing" as per Note 2 to Chapter 49 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. They also referenced the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary to support their stance. However, the authorities rejected this interpretation, stating that embossing cannot be equated to printing.

The appellant further relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in a previous case and a Larger Bench judgment of the Tribunal to support their argument that embossing should be considered printing. They contended that the rejection of the benefit of the notification to the exporter was unjustified. On the other hand, the JCDR argued that printing only refers to machine-made printing and not embossing. They maintained that the impugned order was correct and should be upheld.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal noted that Note 2 to Chapter 49 explicitly includes embossing within the term "printing." Citing the Supreme Court's ruling and the Tribunal's previous judgment, the Tribunal concluded that the term "printing" should encompass embossing as well. Therefore, the benefit of the notification should be extended to the appellants. The Tribunal deemed the impugned order as not legal and proper, setting it aside and allowing the appeal with any consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions, previous judgments, and the clear language of the customs notification. The ruling emphasized the need to apply consistent interpretation principles and give effect to the wording of the notification to determine the eligibility for benefits in importation cases.