1990(08)LCX0093
BEFORE THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), BOMBAY
S.K. Bhardwaj, Collector Appeals
MILES INDIA LTD.
Versus
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
Order in Appeal No. 1249/90 BCH, dated 17-8-1990
Advocated By : S/Shri Willingdon Christian, Advocate
J.R. Shah, for the Appellants.
[Order per : S.K. Bhardwaj, Collector (Appeals)]. - M/s. Miles India Ltd., the appellants imported a consignment of impregnated filter paper and sought clearance under heading 4811.29 read with Notification 219/80. The Asstt. Collector rejected the claim of appellants and ordered to assess the impugned goods under Heading 4823.90. Aggrieved by the order the appellants filed this appeal.
2. The appellants stated that the department allowed clearance of several consignments of impugned goods assessing them under Heading 4811.29 read with Notification 219/80. Thus the Asstt. Collector cannot change the established practice of assessment suddenly. They further stated that for the sake of Customs duty the Asstt. Collector classified the impugned goods under Heading 4823.20. For the purpose of levy of additional duty the impugned goods cannot be classified under Heading 4823.90. They further stated that as per test report the impugned goods are impregnated paper and Collector (Appeals) ordered to classify such goods under Heading 48.11 vide Order No. 479/90/BCH dated 14-3-1990. Therefore the appellants claim that the impugned goods are eligible for the benefit of Notification 219/80 and are not classifiable under Heading 48.23.
3. Mr. Willingdon Christian and Mr. J.R. Shah appeared for personal hearing. Learned Advocate discussed the chequered history of the case and submitted that essentially at this stage the dispute is confined to a limited issue namely whether for the purpose of the additional duty of Customs the goods are classifiable under C.E.T. 4823.19 or 4823.90. The learned Advocate drew attention to the General Rules for the Interpretation of Tariff and the Heading 48.23 and submitted that by virtue of the said rules of interpretation only sub-heading 19 can be applicable to their case and not sub-heading 90 because the said sub-heading would relate only to articles of paper and not to paper cut to shape or sizes. He, therefore, stated that for the purpose of C.V.D. the goods should be classified under Heading 4823.19.
4. I have considered the submissions contained in the memorandum of appeal and those advanced at the time of personal hearing. Without going into the elaborate submissions and alternate prayers contained in the memorandum of appeal I would confine the decision in this appeal to the issue which is rather limited, that is whether the goods for the purpose of payment of additional duty of Customs are classifiable under C.E.T. 4823.19 or 4823.90. There is no dispute regarding the classification as well as the rate of duty so far as basic duty of Customs is concerned. The dispute is limited only to the C.V.D and to the sub-heading under Heading 48.23.
5. From the photo-copy of the Triplicate copy of Bill of Entry produced by the learned Advocate it is observed that the goods have been classified for the purpose of C.V.D. under Heading 4823.90. The learned Advocate is pressing the claim for classification under Heading 4823.19. Therefore, there is no dispute so far as the main heading is concerned namely 4823. The dispute is only regarding the sub-heading whether goods should be classified under sub-heading 19 or 90 of Heading 48.23.
6. Heading 48.23 reads as “Other paper, paper board, Cellulose wadding and webs of cellulose fibres, cut to size or shape; other articles (emphasis mine) of paper pulp, paper board, cellulose wadding or webs of cellulose fibres”. It would therefore be observed that Heading 48.23 can be categorised into two, namely other paper board, paper, cellulose wadding or webs of cellulose fibres cut to size or shape and secondly other articles of paper pulp etc. Sub-heading 4823.19 covers the first part of Heading ‘’ 48.23 namely other paper, paper board, cellulose wadding and webs of cellulose fibres cut to size or shape. The appellants’ claim that their paper is cut to size and hence it is covered under sub-heading 19 of Heading 48.23. This submission seems to be legally valid because under Heading 48.23 a sub-category namely “other paper, paper board, cellulose wadding or webs of cellulose fibres cut to size or shape” has been inserted and sub-heading 11,12,13,14 & 19 relate to the said sub-entry. In other words sub-headings 11,12,13,14, & 19 relate to the first part of the Heading 48.23.
7. That sub-heading 4823.19 relates only to “other paper, paper board, cellulose wadding and webs of cellulose cut to size and shape” is also supported by the General Explanatory Notes to the Rules for Interpretation of the Excise Tariff. In terms of the said note the articles which are preceded by"-" shall be taken to be a sub-classification of the articles or group of articles which is preceded by “-”. Sub-heading 4823.19 is preceded by “-” and hence it is a sub-classification of the articles preceded by a “-” namely other paper, paper board, cellulose wadding etc. i.e. the first part of Heading 48.23.
8. Sub-heading 4823.90 is preceded by"-" and covers the articles falling under second part of Heading 48.23. Since first part of Heading 48.23 has already been covered by the entry ‘others’ at 4823.19, the entry ‘Others’ at 4823.90 has necessarily to be a sub-heading covering the second part of the articles covered by Heading 48.23 namely articles of paper pulp, paper, paper boards, cellulose wadding, or webs of cellulose fibres.
9. The impugned goods have been classified under Heading 48.23. This classification is not in dispute either by the appellants or by the department. So far as the sub-heading is concerned, in view of the above discussions there is no doubt that the correct classification of the impugned goods would be under sub-heading 4823.19 and not 4823.90. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside with directions that for the purpose of additional duty of Customs the goods are classifiable under C.E.T. 4823.19 and consequential relief be given to the appellants.
Equivalent 1991 (054) ELT 0456 (Coll. Appls.)