2002(02)LCX0133

IN THE CEGAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE

S/Shri G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J) and S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)

M.N. RAMA RAO & CO.

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE

Final Order No. 159/2002, dated 8-2-2002 in Appeal No. C/956/98

Cases Quoted

Commissioner v. Titanium Equipments and Moulds Mfg. Co. Ltd. — 1998(08)LCX0020 Eq 1999 (107) ELT 0112 (Tribunal) — Distinguished ........................................................................................................................................ [Para 3]

Dunlop India Ltd. v. U.O.I. — 1975(10)LCX0016 Eq 1983 (013) ELT 1566 (S.C.) — Relied on ............................ [Para 3]

John Flower India Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2001(05)LCX0213 Eq 2001 (135) ELT 1320 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 3]

Millipore India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2001(06)LCX0162 Eq 2001 (138) ELT 0256 (Tribunal) — Relied on [Para 3]

Millipore India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2001(12)LCX0061 Eq 2002 (141) ELT A180 (S.C.) — Referred ...  [Para 3]

Advocated By :   Shri Rameshananthan, Advocate, for the Appellant.

Shri Narasimha Murthy, JDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : S.S. Sekhon Member (T)]. - The appellant had imported a consignment declared as 22 rolls of filter segments (poret PPI 80 Ivory) vide bill of entry 217, dated 2-4-91, and claimed classification under Heading 84.21 of the Customs Tariff, claiming that to be parts of filters and benefit under Notification No. 59/87. The lower authorities however came to the conclusion that the goods under import were plastic sheets in the form of rolls. The imported goods are 15 mm thick, they would be considered as ‘poret foam sheets’ classified under Heading 39.21. The lower authorities while coming to the decision considered that one cubic feet of the imported material will contain 2300 sq. ft. for dust collection internal area and the items are manufactured in a sophisticated manner. They also took note of Test House report that filtering material was required to be made up of flexible foam only and that the imported material was required to be slit/cut depending on the requirements to be used specifically as filter elements/parts and that the present imports would last about five years. They held that the imported item was only of raw material and not as parts, having not been cut to shape and size ready for fitment. They observed that the sub-heading 84.21 of the Customs Tariff covers “Centrifugus including centrifugal dryers, filtering or purifying machinery and apparatus for liquids or gases”. Thereafter after applying the logic of the notes in the Tariff in various sections, they concluded that the imported material will have to be assessed in the form in which they are presented (imported) for assessment and one cannot go by the intended ultimate use. They recognized that it may be true that the item might have been manufactured under High Tech process, for a specific use as filters, but their basic character of being polyurethane foam specifically covered under Chapter sub-heading 3921 of the Customs Tariff, in the form of in which they were imported, and such basic character remains. Therefore they classified the items under 39.21 of the Customs Tariff.

2. The present appeal is filed against the denial of classification of the imported Rolls of material claimed as filter segments/parts under Chapter 84.21 by the importer.

3. We have heard both sides and considered the submissions. The ld. Advocate drew attention to the decision in the case of Titanium Equipments & Moulds Mfg Co. Ltd reported in [1999 (107) ELT 112] to submit that the material imported in the facts of that case was classified under sub-heading 8421.99 of the Customs Tariff and not under sub-heading 3926.90, an article of polyurethane sheet. He submitted that the decision of this Bench in the case of John Flower India Ltd., Final Order No. 878, 899 of 2001, dated 8-5-2001 [2001(05)LCX0213 Eq 2001 (135) ELT 1320 (T)] and submitted that, that order did not consider the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Titanium Equipments & Moulds Mfg Co. Ltd. reported in [1999 (107) ELT 112]. Their goods being of the same kind as in the Titanium case, therefore it should get the benefit of classified under Chapter 8421.99 as parts of filters and not under 39.21, as held in the case of John Flower by this Bench order No. 878-899 of 2001. To a specific question from the Bench that in the case of M/s. Millipore India Ltd. Final Order No. 1106 & 1107/2001, dated 18-6-2001 [2001(06)LCX0162 Eq 2001 (138) ELT 0256 (T)], which had considered the filter equipment and material manufactured in the case of Titanium Equipments & Moulds Mfg. Co. Ltd. reported in 1999 (107) ELT 112 and differentiated the same to be applicable only to the facts of ‘membrane element’ imported by Titanium since Titanium case was decided on the basis of classification opinion by Customs Cooperative Council as presented by the appellant in that case. Therefore Titanium case will not be applicable. The ld. Advocate had no submission to make. We find in the present case before us, no such classification opinion has been relied upon by the ld. Advocate, therefore following this Bench decision in the case of M/s. Millipore India Ltd. Order No. 1106 & 1107, dated 18-6-2001. The appeal filed by M/s. Millipore India (P) Ltd., in the Supreme Court against this order of classification has been dismissed vide order in Civil Appeal No. 6504-6505 of 2001, dated 3-12-2001 [2001(12)LCX0061 Eq 2002 (141) ELT A180 (S.C.)]. We do not consider any merits in the present imports to lead a classification under Chapter 8421 as filter parts for goods in terms of polyurethane foam rolls as imported. The reliance of ld. DR on Supreme Court’s decision in the case reported in 1975(10)LCX0016 Eq 1983 (013) ELT 1566 (S.C.) that goods should be classified in the manner in which they are imported and not the ultimate use, confirms that the goods should be classified as an article of plastic under Chapter 3926 of the Customs Tariff. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities, nor do we find any case of conflict in our findings with that of the view taken by the decision in the case of Titanium Equipments & Moulds Mfg Co. Ltd. of the Chennai Bench, as we find that the Bench in the case of Titanium had decided the issue based on the Customs Cooperation Rulings for the material imported in that case. No such Ruling is upon to be applicable. There is no material to find the goods hereto be the same as in Titanium case. Thus the present appeal having no merits is therefore dismissed.

Ordered accordingly.

Equivalent 2002 (143) ELT 660 (Tri. - Bang.)

Equivalent 2002 (050) RLT 0556