International Auto Suppliers vs Collector Of Customs, Bombay >1983(04)LCX0061

1983(04)LCX0061

BEFORE THE CEGAT, SPECIAL BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI

S/Shri B.B. Gujral, Vice-President, K.L. Rekhi, Member (T) and Ms. V.S. Rama Devi, Member

INTERNATIONAL AUTO SUPPLIERS

Versus

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY

Order No. B-239/83, dated 14-4-1983 in A. No. 763/80-B

Advocated By : Shri S.P. Kampani, Consultant, for the Appellants.

Shri N.V. Raghavan Iyer, SDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : B.B. Gujral, Vice-President]. - The case was heard on 14-4-1983.

2. The appellants seek reassessment of water pumps spindle bearings imported by them under Heading 84.62(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The goods were assessed by the Customs under Heading 84.62(2). The Appellate Collector held that both these headings were inappropriate and that the subject goods were more correctly classifiable under Heading 84.10(3). In order to facilitate a proper understanding of the matter, we reproduce below all these three sub-headings :-

“84.62 Ball, roller or needle roller bearings :

(1) Ball and roller hearings not elsewhere specified

(2) Ball bearings of all types not exceeding 60 millimetres bore diameter”

“84.10 Pumps (including motor pumps and turbo pumps) for liquids, whether or not fitted with measuring devices; liquid elevators of bucket, chain, screw, band and similar kinds :

(1) XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

(2) XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

(3) Fuel, oil or water pumps for internal combustion piston engines (including fuel injection pumps)”

3. The appellants showed a sample of integral shaft ball bearing and the catalogue of this article. They stated that the same article was also commercially known as spindle bearing. They showed another catalogue of a different manufacturer in support of their statement. It was the common argument of the appellants as well as the Department’s representative that the subject bearing had no alternative uses other than in internal combustion engines and, therefore. Heading 84.10(3) was inappropriate for them. It was also their common ground that Heading 84.62 would be more appropriate also for the reason that it was specific for ball bearings. On seeing from the catalogues we find that in spite of the integral shaft passing through the bearing, it was still commercially described as a ball bearing or spindle bearing. We, therefore, agree with the two sides that the specific Heading 84.62 would be more appropriate for the subject bearings. The dispute before us related to whether the goods should be classified under sub-heading (1) as urged by the appellants or under sub-heading (2) as originally assessed by the Custom House. The appellants stated that the subject spindle bearing or integral shaft ball bearing had no bore and showed a certificate dated 17-9-1979 from the D.G.T.D. in support of their contention. The Department’s representative maintained that the subject bearing should be deemed to have a bore as otherwise the shaft could not go through it. He contended that diameter of the deemed bore should be taken and on that basis the goods classified under sub-heading (2). The appellants replied to this argument saying that the shaft had not been inserted in the bearing but it was integral to the bearing and two ends of the shaft had been turned to the required circumference. The Department’s representative also stated that sub-heading (1) was a residuary one and it could not be invoked as sub-heading (2) was to be ruled out first. He argued that the subject bearings were akin to the ball bearings described in sub-heading (2) and if it was the position that both the sub-headings were equally applicable, the goods were to be classified under sub-heading (2) by the application of Interpretative Rule 3(c) which provides that the rule which occurred latest among those which equally merit consideration should be applied.

4. We have carefully considered the matter, seen the sample of the subject goods and gone through the catalogue. We hold that the goods have to be assessed to the customs duty in the form in which they are imported. Sub-heading (2) of Heading 84.62 requires that ball bearings to be classified under that sub-heading should fulfil the following two conditions :-

(i) They should have a bore, and

(ii) diameter of their bore should not exceed 60 mm.

5. The subject spindle bearings or integral shaft ball bearings do not have a bore as they have an integral shaft fixed at the place where the bore should have been. When they do not have a bore, the question of their having a bore diameter does not arise. It is not permissible to ignore the actual condition of the goods imported and assess them on the basis of some deemed condition. Since the subject goods do not fulfil the requirements of sub-heading (2), there is no scope to invoke the Interpretative Rule 3(c) and since by common agreement the goods are bearings, they fall squarely under sub-heading (1) of Heading 84.62. When an appropriate heading for the goods themselves is available in the Tariff, the question of invoking the Interpretative Rule 4 to search for some other heading appropriate to the akin goods does not arise. We, therefore, hold that the subject spindle bearings were correctly classifiable under Heading 84.62(1).

6. Accordingly, we allow this appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.

Equivalent 1994 (70) ELT 645 (Tribunal)