1996 (8) TMI 329 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Whether the "Wind-up Buggy" goods are accessories to the PFY spinning plant of the appellant.

Detailed Analysis:
The appellant claimed the "Wind-up Buggy" goods as spares under Appendix 6 Serial No. 4, contending they are accessories to the PFY spinning plant. The Collector, in the impugned order, held that the goods are not accessories and thus not entitled to clearance under O.G.L.

The goods in question, the "Wind-up Buggy," are specially designed by M/s. Dupont for use in the wind-up assembly of the Polyester Filament yarn plant. The purpose of the buggy is to remove the wind-up assembly for cleaning, which is required periodically to maintain the assembly's proper functioning.

The appellant argued that the buggy is an adjunct or accompaniment to the wind-up assembly, essential for its effective functioning. However, the Tribunal found it difficult to accept that the buggy directly contributes to the effectiveness of the assembly, as its primary function is limited to removal and transportation.

The Tribunal emphasized that for an item to be considered an accessory, it must directly enhance the effectiveness of the main machine. Merely being specially designed for use with another item does not automatically classify it as an accessory, as seen in examples of tools designed for specific wristwatches.

Citing legal precedents, including judgments from the Supreme Court and the Tribunal, the advocate for the appellant argued for a broader interpretation of what constitutes an accessory. However, the Tribunal maintained that unless an item significantly enhances or contributes to the main machine's performance, it cannot be deemed an accessory.

The Tribunal also discussed the definition of an accessory as per various dictionaries and policy documents, emphasizing that the accessory must play a direct role in enhancing the equipment's effectiveness to qualify as such.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish that the "Wind-up Buggy" goods were accessories to the PFY spinning plant. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The judgment highlights the importance of direct contribution to the effectiveness of equipment in determining whether an item qualifies as an accessory, emphasizing functionality over mere design or association with the main machine.