9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (8) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Heading 84.45/48. The appellant company claimed classification of these goods under Tariff Heading 84.45/48. They were, however, classified by the Assistant Collector of Customs under Heading 82.05. This order was upheld by the Collector of Customs (Appeals); hence this appeal. 2. The issue to be decided in the other appeal No. C/1502/89-B2 by the same appellant is identical. The only points of difference are that the appellant company had imported only one die and that because of legislative amendment the earlier Heading 82.05 was replaced by heading 82.07 and the relevant part of Heading 82.45/48 by 84.66. The issues in both the appeals being the same, they are being disposed of by this order. 3. Shri A. Hidayatullah, Sr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the International Organisation for Standardisation figuring in its ISO Guide 2 of July 1983. This defines `interchangebility' as "The suitability of a product (products) to fulfil the relevant requirements". The Bench was of the view that the reference to interchangeable tools in Heading 82.05 was with reference to the tools. It did not mean that the machine to which the tools were fitted were capable of doing multiple jobs. Since one die could manufacture only a particular part and could not perform any other function, it could not be classified as an interchangeable tool. It, therefore, held the dies to be classifiable under Heading 84.45/48. The ratio of this decision was followed in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 532 (Tri.) and 1992 (55) E.L.T. 105 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry Notes to the said Heading, inter alia, states as follows :- Whereas (apart from a few exceptions such machine saw blades) the preceding headings of this Chapter apply in the main to hand tools ready for use as they stand or after affixing handles the present heading covers an important group of tools which are unsuitable for use independently, but are designed to be lifted, as the case may be, into :- (A)hand tools, whether or not mechanical (e.g. breast drills, braces and die-stocks); (B)machine-tools, of Headings 84.45, 84.46 and 84.47 or falling within Heading 84.59 by reason of Note 5 to Chapter 84; (C) tools of Headings 84.49 and 85.06 for pressing, stamping, threading, tapping, drilling, boring, reaming, broaching, milling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, (2) interchangeable tools for machine tools, (3) interchangeable tools for power-operated hand tools. Interchangeability of the tools, therefore, has to be with reference to a particular machine and not that the tool itself should be capable of performing different types of jobs. The term `interchangeability' in the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) Guide II appears to be a general purpose definition of the term `interchangeable.' The definition of ISO Guide II appears to be relevant in a different context e.g. when we say that this tractor part is interchangeable with a transport vehicle, we mean that the function which that particular part can perform in a tractor, the same function can be performed by that transport ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is another aspect of the matter. By equating interchangeability with replacement, each die or similar tool which should otherwise be classifiable under Heading 82.05 would fall for classification elsewhere and the net result would be that Heading 82.05 would be rendered nugatory and surplus. On the argument that each one of a set of dies produces different parts and the die would, therefore, not be interchangeable with each other, they would not fall for classification under Heading 82.05. It would be observed that if one die is imported it would be classifiable under Heading 82.05 for the reason that it is not interchangeable; if more than one identical die is imported, they would be classifiable under Heading 82.05. To base classifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se was not pointed out to the Bench which decided the Lohia Starlinger case. If it had been pointed out, the decision could well have been different. The Lohia Starlinger decision has, therefore, to be distinguished. 7. The argument that the dies could not be considered as tools does not stand in the face of the definition of `die' in the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, Second edition :- "Die (DES ENG) A tool or mould used to imported shapes to or to form impression on materials such as metals and ceramics." We, therefore, hold that the goods would be classifiable under Heading 82.05 (Heading 8207.90 in appeal No. 1502/89-B2). We are not aware of the circumstances under which the Supreme Court has rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
