1991(01)LCX0084

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

S/Shri P.C. Jain, Member (T) and G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICE

Versus

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

Order No. C/01/91-D, dated 1-1-1991 in Appeal No. C/3123/87-D

Cases Quoted

STAR PAPER MILLS LTD. v. COLLECTOR — 1989(08)LCX0030 Eq 1989 (043) ELT 0178 (S.C.)                     [PARA 4]

SIMMONDS MARSHAL LTD. v. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR — 1985 (022) ELT 378    [PARA 5]

MITUTRONICS v. COLLECTOR — 1989(11)LCX0043 Eq 1990 (046) ELT 0500 (TRIBUNAL)                 [PARAS 6 & 7]

Advocated By : S/Shri D.B. Engineer, Senior Advocate with Kumar Trivedi, Advocate, for the Appellants.

Shri L.C. Chakraborty, JDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)]. - This is an appeal preferred against the Order-in-Appeal No. 2574/86/BCH dated 23-12-1986 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.

2. The point of dispute in the present case is whether ‘Printed Aptitude Test booklets’ are classifiable under Tariff Item 49.01 of ICT as claimed by the appellants or under Heading 48.01/21(1) of ICT as it was held by the Department.

3. The appellants imported 16 packages of printed aptitude Test Booklets (titled “Differential Test Battery”), under OGL (vide Item 5 of List No. 7 of Appx. 6 of the Policy of 1985-88) valued at Rs. 61,239/-. The appellants filed a bill of entry declaring the said goods as falling under Heading 49.01 of ICT which covers ‘printed books’ etc. as they were free of customs duty. The Deputy Collector of Customs, Air Cargo, Bombay who adjudicated the proceedings negatived the contentions of the appellants and held that item imported is in the nature of exercise book meant for manuscript writing by students, the item cannot be considered as ‘books’ under Tariff Item 49.01 but as stationery material classifiable under Tariff Item 48.01/21(1) of ICT. Since the goods were not covered under OGL, he ordered for confiscation of the said goods. However, he gave an option to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 60,000/-. This order was confirmed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals). Hence, this issue.

4. Shri D.B. Engineer, learned Sr. Advocate, appearing for the appellants, demonstrated the samples of imported material and pointing out the literature supplied by the supplier in respect of imported item submitted that the said goods were not stationery for general use but were educational booklets meant for aptitude test. Each booklet consisted of 5 printed aptitude test (General Ability - 3 Tests Verbal, numerical and perpetual mechanical ability 1 test and speed 1 test). The Test Booklets constitute a series and have a meaning and use as a complete unit. The sheets are inter-linked not only with one another but also with the “Administrative Manual” on which the tests are based on the “Notes on the Interpretation of the Test Profiles”, according to which the appraisal of the performance is made. He said that there is a fundamental distinction between exercise books and the said test booklets imported by the appellants. The item in question cannot be considered to be an exercise book meant for manuscript. Neither this was an exercise book nor a manuscript. Manuscript refers to something written or typewritten but it is not so. Exercise book is available in all stationery shops and there is no integral connection between one sheet and another. These booklets are not available in the stationery shops and further these imported test booklets are printed material designed for a specific purpose and also, unlike items of stationery, the booklets are the work of a particular ‘author’ and protected by copyright. He drew our attention to the meanings of ‘Stationery book’ and booklets as given in the Concise Oxford Dictionary and Webster Dictionary and pointed out that stationery is of universal use for diverse purposes whereas the goods imported by the appellants were books/booklets meant for aptitude test which would fall under Chapter 49.01 of Customs Tariff. He said that in the absence of the terms ‘stationery’ and booklets in the Statute, it is permissible to refer to the dictionary meaning as it was held by the Supreme Court in the case of Star Paper Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1989(08)LCX0030 Eq 1989 (043) ELT 0178 (SC)]. It was also contended by him that the item in question clearly falls under the specific description of the Tariff Item 49.01 and according to Rule 3(a) of the Interpretation of Rules, specific description shall be preferred to the heading providing a general description.

5. On the other hand Shri L.C. Chakravorthy, learned J.D.R. for the revenue, while justifying the action of the Department in classifying the item under Tariff Item 48.01/21(1) submitted that in view of the admission made by the appellants that the goods in question can be used as exercise/answer books as observed by the Collector (Appeals), this has to be classified as exercise book under Tariff Heading 48.01/21. He said that the meaning of stationery has to be understood in a broader sense as per International understanding of the term stationery and India being a member Country of the International Trade and Commerce and the term should be understood in the same sense. The paper designed for special purpose requiring completion in manuscript is classifiable under Heading 48.01/21 based upon explanation given in CCN Explanatory Note 48.18 which is abridged form of 48.01/21. He said that it was a sheer mistake in mentioning 48.14 of C.T.A. in the impugned order as against 48.18 of CCN Notes. He argued that Note Book is a special type of exercise book and Note book is inclusive of an account book which is having printed material as defined in Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1985 Edition with Correction - Volume 2) and Lexicon Webster Dictionary Volume-1 Page 649. He said that this can be considered as a special type of Note book and not available in stationery stores and it is not the criterion for the purpose of classification relying upon the ratio of the decision in the case of Simmonds Marshal Ltd. v. M.R. Baralikar, Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Pune & Others [1985 (022) ELT 378].

6. In reply, Sri D.B. Engineer submitted that appellants have not admitted that imported item could-be used as exercise book/answer book. On the other hand it was specifically denied as it was a subject matter of dispute. The item in question is not a mere answer book and even answer book cannot be classified as a stationery item. He said that both the impugned orders refer to Item 48.14 of Customs Tariff and not to Note No. 48.18 of CCN Explanatory Notes which itself shows non-application of mind in determining the classification. Further it is dangerous to rely upon the CCN Notes as it is self-contained note and that too when there is no doubt or ambiguity in classifying the item in question. As regards note book he said that this point was not raised by the authorities below nor this item can be considered as note book as it consists of all printing materials and even according to Webster Dictionary it refers to blank book. He also said that decision cited by the S.D.R. is not applicable to the facts of this case and on the other hand the ratio of the decision in the case of Mitutronics v. Collector of Customs [1989(11)LCX0043 Eq 1990 (046) ELT 0500 (Tribunal)] supports this case, wherein it was held loose sheet of paper also recognisable to be book while considering educational audi-visual picture cards are recognised as books classifiable under Heading 49.03.

7. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced on both sides and perused the records. To decide the question of classification of the goods imported, it would be relevant to set out both the entries in the Customs Tariff and they are reproduced as under :-

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

Tariff Entry 48.01/21 covers all type of papers or paper pulp in general and stationery made of paper or paperboard; articles not elsewhere specified. Chapter 49 of the Customs Tariff covers printed books, newspapers, pictures and other products of the printing industry, manuscripts, typescripts and plans, whereas 49.01 specifies printed books, booklets, brochures, pamphlets and leaflets. We observe that in the Bill of Entry the appellants have declared the said goods as ‘Educational Material Test Booklets’ classifying under Heading 49.01 of the Customs Tariff and after examining the goods in question with reference to the concerned literature and submissions made by the appellants’ counsel, we are convinced that these test booklets are basically printed material of an educational nature and cannot be described as stationery because some blank space is provided therein for answers. The description of the booklets is tallied with the specific description under Tariff Entry 49.01. Entry 48.01/21 is of general nature and not applicable to articles elsewhere specified. We concur with the arguments advanced by the appellants’ counsel that specific description should be preferred to the heading providing a general description. Further the view taken by the Tribunal in the case of Mitutronics v. Collector of Customs (supra) that “books could even be in the form of sheets or literary texts, each sheet having a continuous link with other are recognised as ‘books’; classifiable under Chapter 49,” strengthens our view. Accordingly, we hold that goods in question would squarely fall under Heading 49.01 as printed books.

8. In the result, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.

_______

Equivalent 1991 (53) ELT 454 (Tribunal)