9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble for confiscation under ITC (HS) classification of Export-Import Policy sub-heading 84702100 and Customs sub-heading 8470.21 of Customs Tariff which reads as under :- 84.70 Calculating machines and pocket-size data recording, reproducing and displaying machines with calculating functions; accounting machines, postage-franking machines, ticket-issuing machines and similar machines, incorporating a calculating device; cash registers . . 8470.21 Incorporating a printing device 2. Appellants had filed Bill of Entry seeking classification under sub-heading 84.73 of the Customs Tariff which reads as under :- 84.73 Parts and accessories (other than covers, carrying cases and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l characteristics of final product also for classification only as a part under 84.73. They contended that they had to use several other parts indigenously procured and required to carry out several processes to make the item a complete one. They were registered under the Central Excise Act as a manufacturing unit in relation to their final product viz. electronic printer calculator and were paying excise duty. Although in Para 24 the Commissioner has accepted all these pleas but yet he has applied the Interpretative Rules of the Customs Tariff to the ITC (HS) classification, and on that premise, held the item to be in CKD condition as consumer goods which required licence. 5. Ld. Counsel Mrs. Anita Sumanth argued that the Interpretative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat they were manufacturing the final product and were buying various indigenous items for various process of manufacture and clearing the same, paying excise duty. However, for ITC purpose, he has applied the Rule 2(a) of Rules of Interpretation of the Customs Tariff to hold the item to be in CKD condition and the final product requiring it to be classified as final product itself under 8470.21. This is contested on the ground that Rule 2(a) of Interpretative Rule cannot be applied to ITC (HS) classification and the judgments are relied on this aspect. We have considered these judgments and note that in the case of Wipro Ltd. (supra) in Para 7(d), have clearly laid down that Interpretative Rule 2(a) cannot be applied to interpret either no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s which are understood to be in the list and not on the basis of understanding in terms of Customs Tariff Act. Accordingly, we are of the view that confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty are not warranted. We set aside the same. Appeal disposed of in the above terms with consequential relief, if any, to the appellants. 10. In the case of K.R. Trading Co. (supra) the Tribunal has taken a similar view and has also further held that I.T.C. Order 1955, although, fully aligned to the Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 but various appendices and paras in EXIM policy are aligned to the Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act and the purpose of both being different, therefore Interpretative Rules cannot be applied. The findings rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of readymade garments. Adjudicating authority s finding that packaging of readymade garments by stapling pins would also be covered within the expression trimmings and embellishment , is not at all warranted from the plains meaning of that latter expression. Hence the imported goods cannot be covered by entry in S. No. 37(IX) of Appendix 17, Part III of the EXIM Policy. Consequently validity of licence produced by the appellant Company cannot be challenged in view of Para 192 of the EXIM Policy. Therefore, we set aside the finding of liability to confiscation of the imported goods and consequently the penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- imposed on the appellant. 5.3 Learned Consultant has not challenged the classification of the goods for assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
