1993(07)LCX0037

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

S/Shri G.P. Agarwal, Member (J) and S.D. Mohile, Member (T)

TRACTORS AND FARM EQUIPMENT LTD.

Versus

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

Order No. 253/93-C, dated 29-7-1993 in Appeal No. C/1645/92-C

CASE CITED

Roto Inks (P) Ltd. v. Collector-1989(12)LCX0053 Eq 1990 (047) ELT 0398 (Tribunal)............................................ [Para 8]

Advocated By : Shri T.R. Ram Subramaniam, Advocate, for the Appellants.

Shri L.N. Murthy, JDR,for the Respondents.

[Order per : S.D. Mobile, Member (T)]. - The issue involved in the appeal is whether photo-copies of technical/engineering drawings are entitled for duty free clearance under Heading No. 4901.90 as contended by the appellants or are chargeable to duty under 4911.99 as held by the Department. The appellants who have got an agreement with their overseas Collaborators had imported technical/engineering drawings and printed manual and had declared the same as “drawings in original form and manuals” as seen from the Order-in-Original. However, on examination the goods were found to be only photostat copies of drawings and the learned Adjudicating Authority following a previous decision by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras for similar goods had classified both the drawings and the manuals under Heading No. 49.11. The Collector (Appeals) has accepted the contention of the appellants so far as printed manuals are concerned. The issue of valuation was also involved which the Collector (Appeals) has decided and is not involved in the present appeal.

2. As regards the drawings the appellants had claimed their classification under 49.01 /49.06. The learned Adjudicating Authority had, however, only considered that 49.06 was not applicable since the drawings were photo-copies and not originals or photographs on sensitised paper or carbon copies thereof which alone were covered by 49.06 which otherwise covered engineering drawings. The Collector (Appeals) after considering the various points has upheld the classification of engineering drawings under Heading 49.11.

3. In the present appeal, the appellants have reiterated the pleas taken before the lower authorities and the learned JDR also reiterated the arguments in the Order-in-Appeal.

3A. Considered. The main point urged before the Collector (Appeals) was that as per the relevant Chapter Notes 4(a) drawings, with a relative text could be classifiable under Heading 49.01 and those not having such texts would alone fall under the residuary entry 49.11. As regards the requirement of numbering, it has been claimed that the numbering need not be only in the form of arabic numerals but that any system of referencing which made them suitable for binding would be covered under Heading 49.01. It was also claimed that the reference in the said Chapter Note to works of Art and drawings was not exhaustive and the word drawings did not refer to drawings which were in the nature of works of Art. It has also been claimed that all printed matters will be covered under Heading No. 49.01. Unless it is covered by some more specific heading and on this ground also the goods could not be classified under the residuary entry 49.11. The Collector (Appeals) has dealt with at length in paras 20 onwards and particularly in paras 23, 24, 25 and 26 as to why the engineering drawings which are not classifiable under Heading 49.06 would go to the residuary entry 49.11.

4. We are in agreement with his views in the Order-in-Appeal. The crux of the matter in our opinion is the scope of the term ‘drawings’ in Chapter Note 4(a) for the purpose of classification of goods under Heading 49.01. The said Chapter Note is reproduced for facility of reference so that the word ‘drawings’ can be interpreted in the proper perspective.

“4. Heading No. 49.01 also covers :

(a) A collection of printed reproductions of, for example, works of art or drawings, with a relative text, put up with numbered pages in a form suitable for binding into one or more volumes."

5. A careful analysis of the said Chapter Note will reveal at least two flaws for accepting the arguments of the appellants for classifying the said engineering drawings under Heading 49.01. The word ‘drawings’ is used in association with the words ‘works of arts’. According to the principle of interpretation of “Noscitur a Sociis” that is the words are to be interpreted according to the company which they keep. Hence, the word “drawings” has to be interpreted in line with the meaning of the preceding phrase “Works of Art” which would refer to the word ‘Drawings’ as used in Art and not the technical/engineering drawings.

6. The arguments regarding distinction between the drawings bearing a text and not bearing a text is also not supported by the said Chapter Note. The drawings with a relative text are not distinct from the drawings without a relative text but from ‘printed pictures or illustrations not bearing a text’.

7. Similarly, the argument regarding numbering of pages is also not very sound. The numbering is not the same as ‘cross reference’ and the word ‘numbering’ has to be understood as it is conventionally understood. On this view of the matter also the engineering ‘drawings’ not satisfying the condition of numbering would not be classifiable under 49.01.

8. In this behalf we have also considered the Tribunal decision in the case of Roto Ink (P) Ltd. v. CC, Bombay reported in 1989(12)LCX0053 Eq 1990 (047) ELT 0398 (Tri.) = 1990 (028) ECR 0025 (Cegat SB-C), but the said decision appears to be distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In that case the technical literature contained actual articles and which were or could be bound in a book form. One other argument raised on behalf of the appellants was that entry 49.11 covered only advertising material. This is also not correct since sub-heading alone 4911.10 covers trade advertising material and 49.11 other printed matter. The present goods, namely, technical drawings are more akin to ‘designs’ which are specifically covered under 4911.91.

9. Admittedly the drawings are ‘printed’ since the word ‘printed’ also means, inter alia, ‘photo-copy’ and as these drawings are photo-copies. As seen from the Explanatory Notes to HSN the Heading 49.01 covers “literary works of all kinds, text-books and technical publications” (Emphasis supplied) “the drawings under reference are not literary works of any kind but are also not text books or technical publications or even Book of reference.”

10. In view of the foregoing, we find that the Order-in-Appeal is correct in law. The decision as regards the classification of manuals and regarding valuation has not been challenged by the Department. The appeal is accordingly rejected.

Equivalent 1993 (68) ELT 234 (Tribunal)