1982(12)LCX0029

IN THE CEGAT ‘SPECIAL BENCH D’, NEW DELHI

PRESENT : Shri B.B. Gujral, Vice-President, Smt. S. Duggal, Member (J) and Shri K.L. Rekhi, Member (T)

PRECISION BEARINGS INDIA LTD., BOMBAY

Versus

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY

Order No. D-10/82, dated 21-12-1982.

Advocated By : Shri M. Chatterjee, D.R, for the Department.

[Order]. - The short point involved in this case is whether honing sticks imported by the appellants should be classified under sub-heading (1) of Heading No. 68.01/16 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as done by the Department or under sub-heading (2) of the same Heading, as requested by the appellants.

2. No one appeared on behalf of the appellants today when the case was called for hearing. Shri M. Chatterjee representing the Department was present. As no request from the appellants for adjournment of the hearing was available on the record either, the Bench decided to proceed with the case on merits after taking into account the written arguments advanced by the appellants in their memorandum of appeal.

3. For ease of reference, we reproduce below the two possible sub-headings of Heading 68.01/16 which have been canvassed before us :

“(1) Not elsewhere specified

(2) Grinding stones, grinding wheels and the like, of natural stone, of agglomerated natural or artificial abrasives, and segments or other finished parts of such stones and wheels but excluding hand polishing stones, whet stones, oil stones, and hones."

4. The impugned goods are described in the import documents as “honing sticks for the manufacture of ball and roller bearings”. This description is indicative of the fact that the goods were machine-operated hones and neither side has disputed this. The appellants’ only argument is that the word “hand” used in the expression, “but excluding hand polishing stones, whet stones, oil stones and hones” occurring in sub-heading (2) qualifies all the four types of stones described in this expression and not merely polishing stones immediately before which the word “and” occurs. In support of their argument, the appellants have cited Explanatory Notes from the BTN Heading 68.05 which related to hand polishing stones, whet stones, oil stones and hones. By way of explanation, the BTN states that Heading 68.05 covers polishing stones, whetstones, oil stones and the like with or without handles, used directly in the hand for sharpening, whetting, scouring or polishing metals and other materials. In view of this Explanatory Note in the BTN, the appellants argue, the interpretation put by the Department is incorrect. In short, the appellants’ case is that since only hand-operated hones are excluded from sub-heading (2), the impugned goods, being machine-operated hones, continued to remain in sub-heading (2) which attracted a lower rate of duty.

5. On behalf of the Department, Shri Chatterjee argued that what was stated in the BTN was not a part of the Customs Tariff Act, that going strictly by the wording of the Tariff, the word “hand” qualified only polishing stones and that, therefore, all types of hones, whether hand-operated or machine-operated, were excluded from sub-heading (2) and were thus correctly classified by the Department under sub-heading (1).

6. We have given our earnest consideration to the matter. We find force in the Department’s contention that since Explanatory Notes to the BTN have not been incorporated into the Customs Tariff, the matter would have to be decided on the basis of the plain interpretation of the Tariff itself. The plain interpretation of the expression “but excluding hand polishing stones, whetstones, oil stones and hones” is that the word “hand” qualifies only polishing stones. Accordingly, we hold that the Department is right in saying that both machine-operated as well as hand-operated hones are excluded from sub-heading (2) and their assessment under sub-heading (1) is, therefore, correct.

7. Appeal rejected.

Equivalent 1983 (12) ELT 362A (C.E.G.A.T)