1995(09)LCX0005

IN THE CEGAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI

S/Shri K.S. Venkataramani, Member (T), G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J) and Lajja Ram, Member (T)

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY

Versus

APPLETREE FOUNDATION WEAR

Final Order Nos. C/352/95-B, dated 27-9-1995 in Appeal No. C/2056/85-B2

CASE CITED

Collector v. Reliable Moulders — 1995(05)LCX0107 Eq 1995 (079) ELT 0265 (Tribunal) — Referred.................... [Para 2]

REPRESENTED BY :        Shri K.K. Jha, SDR, for the Appellant.

None, for the Respondent.

[Order per : K.S. Venkataramani, Member (T)]. - The brief facts of this appeal, which has been filed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay, against the order dated 31-5-85 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay are as follows :

M/s. Appletree Foundation Wear, Ludhiana (respondents) had imported a consignment of a machine described as Trident II Automatic fusing/Transfer Printing Press and claimed assessment under Heading 84.40(1) of the CTA, 75. But the machine was found to be assessable under Heading 84.59(1) and accordingly, the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay vide No. S/26-19/84H/N/S-148/84H, dated 23-4-84 ordered its assessment under residuary Heading 84.59(1) CTA, 75. Respondents filed an appeal against this order dated 23-4-84 before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The ld. Collector (Appeals) vide order Nos. S/49-1252/84CL, dated 31-5-85 allowed their appeal and directed the Custom House assessment to be under 84.40(1) with consequential relief to the appellants.

2. Ld. SDR, Shri K.K. Jha, referred to the grounds of appeal and contended that the machine, in question, is used for transfer of image from motifs to cloth/garment one by one, and cannot be considered as a printing machine envisaged in Heading 84.40 CTA, 1975 as that heading covers machines designed to print on textiles with block printing machine, roller printing machine, screen printing machine, etc., as per explanatory Notes to Customs Cooperative Council Nomenclature (CCCN). The ld. SDR relied upon Tribunal decision in the case of Collector v. Reliable Moulders [1995 (079) ELT 265 = 1995 (059) ECR 430] to say that only machines of the type which are normally used in printing industry for the purpose of printing with the help of printing ink can be covered under heading for printing machinery and in that case the Tribunal had held that automatic hot foil machine for stamping impression on plastic component would be assessable under Heading 84.59(1) CTA and not as other printing machinery under Heading 84.35 as claimed by the respondents therein. None was present for the respondents, who have explained in their letter dated 6-7-95 that the machine is only a hot press machine which is also designed to transfer designs by heat process besides being designed for fusing of collars and cuffs in shirts or any other garment where fusing is required. They have, further, stated that the “machine is not at all a printing machine.”

3. The submissions made have been carefully considered. The competing tariff Headings are 84.40(1) CTA claimed by the respondents and 84.59(1) under which department has assessed the goods to duty. These two headings at the relevant time were as follows :

4. The  literature  about  the  machine  available  on  record  reads follows :

“Trident II automatic Platen size 157 cm x 43 cm (63” x 17”) Incorporating B & W’s Unique Twin Pressure Arm system, the Trident is probably the largest area, compact, fully automatic fusing transfer printing press in the world. I deal for high production fusing in ladies wear, menswear, and for most types of transfer printing on ladies and menswear, underwear, sportswear, T-shirts, etc. Available with twin tray operation for faster production, or without (twin trays can be added later as required)” (emphasis supplied).

The above description in the product literature as well as the respondents explanation about it referred to above, would that the equipment is designed to perform two functions of fusing of garments and transfer printing thereon. In this context Chapter Note 5 of Chapter 84 CTA is relevant according to which,

“A machine which is used for more than one purpose is for the purpose of classification, to be treated as if its principal purpose were its sole purpose. Subject to Note 2 to this Chapter and Note 3 to Section XVI, a machine whose principal purpose is not described in any Heading or for which no one purpose is the principal purpose is, unless the context otherwise requires, to be classified in Heading No. 84.59.....”

From the description of the machine imported it is apparent that it is equally efficacious both for fusing and transfer printing on garments and as such it can be said that neither of them could be regarded as the principal purpose of the machine, and, in this view of the matter, Chapter Note 5 of the Chapter 84 CTA extracted above, will come into play, and the article will, therefore, be classifiable under Heading 84.59(1) CTA. It is also noted that as per Departmental understanding, transfer printing machine Elna transfers designed for the transfer of designs from paper transfers to garments like T-shirts, trousers, jeans, etc., is classifiable under Heading 84.59(1) CTA as per Bombay Custom House Tariff Public Notice 46, dated 18-9-79. In the result, it is held that the Assistant Collector’s order in assessment classifying the Trident II Automatic fusing transfer printing press under Heading 84.59(1) CTA is sustainable, and, therefore, the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) is set aside, and the appeal is allowed.

_______

Equivalent 2004 (175) ELT 728 (Tri. - Del.)