9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (11) TMI 330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3-4-1980 and S/49-958/80R, dated 30-6-1980 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay. On the setting up of this Tribunal, it was transferred to the Tribunal in terms of Section 131-B of the Customs Act to be disposed of as if it were an appeal filed before the Tribunal. 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that Bhor Industries imported certain consignments of a polymeric plasticizer of the trade name Santicizer 429 . Fibre-Glass Pilkington imported another polymeric plasticizer of the trade name Reoplex 400 . The Customs authorities at the port of Bombay assessed both the goods to basic duty of Customs under Heading No. 39.01/06 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (Customs Tariff, for short) and to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... correct. It appeared to the Government that Heading No. 38.01/19.(6) - a residuary entry of a residuary chapter-included only those plasticizers which were not specified elsewhere. The goods in question appeared to be fully covered opined that Chapter 39 would cover even those allied polycondensation, polyaddition and polymerisation products which did not have the apparent characteristics of artificial resins and that the present product, a polymer having about 10 monomeric units in its chain, would fall under Chapter 39. The Appellate Collector, said Shri Sundar Rajan, had gone wrong in saying that since the goods were out of the purview of Item No. 15A, C.E.T., they would go out of the purview of Chapter 39 of the Customs Tariff as well. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was similar to Resols or liquid polyisobutylene. 12. In reply, Shri Sundar Rajan, D.R., stated that Chapter 39 covered also non-resinous or non-plastic materials answering to the description of polycondensation products etc. specified in the headings. The amended entry did not speak of artificial resins, unlike the pre-1-8-1978 entry. 13. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. We have set out the rival contentions at length because the Tribunal s Order No. 449/1984 [1984 (18) E.L.T. 521] was in relation to a pre-1-8.1978 importation. Leaving - side the amendment of 1978 for the nonce, the order discussed the issue at length, referred to technical authorities and finally concluded that plasticizers were not resins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of additional duty of Customs. 4. Both the Respondents filed replies to the notices, denying all the allegations. 5. We have heard Shri A.S. Sundar Rajan, DR, for the appellant, Shri V.N. Deshpande, Advocate, for Bhor Industries and Shri V.J. Taraporewala and Shri R, J. Majra, Advocates, for Fibre-Glass Pilkington. 6. At this stage, it is expedient to deal with a preliminary objection raised by Bhor Industries in their reply to the Government s show cause notice. It is that the orders ought to be reviewed are dated 23-4-1980 (despatched on 28-4-1980). The show cause notice is, however, dated 17-9-1981. Section 131(4)(b) of the Customs Act requires the notice to be served on the affected person within one year of the order sought to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifiable under heading No. 38.01/19(6). The order pertained to the tariff entry prior to 1-8-1978. Therefore, the Department had no case in so far as the pre-1-8-1978 importation (Bill of Entry No. 2850, dated 27-5-1978) was concerned. 9. Next, the Departmental Representative referred to the Appellate Collector s Note dated 1-4-1980 to the Deputy Chief Chemist, Bombay and the latter s note of 21-4-1980. In his note, the Deputy Chief Chemist had The Amendment Act of 1978, which came into force on 1-7-1978, inserted a new entry, more closely aligned with the Headings 39.01 to 39.06 of the CCCN. It reads : 39.01/06 - Condensation, polycondensation and polyaddition products, whether or not modified or polymerised, ............. ; polymeri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ene. And unless a product is similar to resol or polyisobutylene, it would not attract the mischief of Chapter Note 2(c). No material has been placed before us by the Department necessitating a change in the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, Heading 39.01/06 is to be ruled out. Not being a separately defined chemical compound, it would not fall within Chapter 28 or 29. Since it is not specified elsewhere, the appropriate classification would be under Heading No. 38.01/19(6) as Plasticizers, not elsewhere specified . 16. The product involved in the proceedings relating to Fibre-Glass Pilkington is Reoplex 400 . This is a polymeric plasticizer of polyester type like Santicizer 429 . The technical leaflet on the product says that it is a plast ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
