9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 416X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laiming the benefit of NIL rate of duty under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002. The Assistant held that benefit of exemption notification was not given to those goods which are not integral parts of the dredger. The respondents appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowed the appeal of the respondent and held that the following goods falling under Chapter 89051000 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 would be entitled for the benefit of the exemption notification. In the light of the decision of Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin v. Jan De Nul N.V. - held that- the commissioner (Appeals) has not taken into account exclusion clause. In view of this, there is merit in Revenue’s appeal and we al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view that the following items do not merit classification under parts/integral parts of the Dredger hired by the importer for a temporary period. (i) Dredging Pumping Units (2 Nos.) (ii) Two Engines and some of the parts kept on a barge separately by the importer. A separate Bill of Entry was also filed. Moreover, the above goods were purchased by the importer from M/s. United Survey and Construction Co. Ltd., Hongkong. Further, the Assistant Commissioner held that except the Main Dredger with fittings and spares, 2 numbers of Multicat, 12 Nos. of Self Floating Pipes and 18 Nos. of M.S. Pipes, all other goods pertain to the respondent. Benefit of exemption notification was not given to those goods which are not integral parts of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng distances as per the requirement. It is a specific additional function and not required during the course of normal dredging work. (iv) In the instant case, the suppliers of dredger and suppliers of other goods are different, the nature of the transaction is different. The Bill of lading and letter of credits are different. The importer filed one Bill of Entry only to claim exemption benefits to other goods also. (v) The dredger and other goods in question are distinctive in nature having independent usage. As such, contention for treating the other goods also as dredger is far fetched and against the established principles for classification of goods. (vi) The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble CEST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dger. Moreover, at the time of import of these goods, the goods were under different ownership. Further, it is seen that the importer purchased the dredging pump and other goods for regular usage and not exclusively for the dredger in question. In the case of CC, Tuticorin" v. Jan De Nul N.V. (cited supra), the Tribunal has examined the entitlement of the pumps imported and used for sucking the dredged material. It has been held that the said pump is classifiable under separate heading and the same cannot be considered as parts of dredger and, therefore, the notification benefit cannot be given under notification 23/98-Cus.and 20/99-Cus. The following observations of the Tribunal in the above case are very relevant. " 53. Pumps: The Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
