1997(03)LCX0177
IN THE CEGAT, NORTHERN BENCH, NEW DELHI
Final Order No. A/80/97-NB, dated 3-3-1997 in Appeal No. C/3636/87-NB
Advocated By : S/Shri Manoj Arora and G. Sahai, Advocates for the Appellant.
Shri Y.R. Kilania, JDR, for the Respondents.
[Order]. - The Collector (Appeals) in his impugned order confirmed the order of the Additional Collector holding that the imported item was flow-meter and was classifiable under chapter leading 90.26. Against this order of the Collector (Appeals), the appellants have filed the present appeal.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellants imported a product and described it as liquid flowmeter Model SN 25E. The department alleged that since the product is described as flowmeter it fell specifically for classification under Customs Tariff against Chapter Heading 90.26 and assessed it to duty. The appellants submitted that the imported product was liquid meter and was classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 9020.20. In support of their contention they submitted technical literature and catalogue of the manufacturer. The lower authorities after considering the submissions held that the product was classifiable against Chapter Heading 90.26.
3. Shri Manoj Arora, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the bill of entry was based on the invoice insofar as description of the product was concerned. He submits that the appellants submitted catalogue of the manufacturer (supplier of the product) while describing the application of the imported goods they submitted that "the meters are used for volumetric measurement of liquids for example milk, cream, salad, oil, butter, juice, wine and spirits." He submits that in this catalogue Model SN 25E which is the product imported by them has clearly been indicated. The ld. Counsel also refers to HSN classification of the goods and submits that the distinction between flowmeter and liquid meter has clearly been brought out. He submits that flowmeter indicates flow rate or level of the liquid (in volume or weight per unit of time) and are used for measurement of flow both through open channels (river, waterways, etc.) and through closed conduits (piping etc.). The ld. Counsel submits that as against this liquid meter is an apparatus which merely indicates the total amount of liquid delivered over a period; that this description was excluded from Chapter sub-heading 90.26 and have been specifically specified for classification under chapter heading 90.28. He submits that if the catalogue of the manufacturer is read with reference to HSN classification and Notes under Heading 90.28 it would be very clear that the product imported by the appellants is liquid meter in which it is used for measuring liquid and not for measuring the flow of liquid. The ld. Advocate submits that the other difference between flowmeter and liquid meter will be that an instrument if it is designed to measure a particular volume of gases during the particular unit of time then it will be a flowmeter; that the present product is not designed or calibrated in any way to measure flow of the liquid/gauges during particular unit of time therefore he pleads that the product merits classification under Tariff sub-heading 9028.20. He, therefore, prays that the appeal may be allowed by approving classification claimed.
4. Shri Y.R. Kilaniya, learned JDR appearing for the department submits that declaration in the bill of entry and the description of the product in the invoice clearly shows that it is flowmeter. He submits that there is specific entry for the product flowmeter under Heading 90.26. He submits that the specific declaration in the bill of entry and in the invoice of the manufacturer, the appellants have not been able to prove as to why the description should be restricted to mean as liquid meter and not the natural description as flowmeter as described by them. The ld. JDR submits that the lower authorities have rightly classified the product under Heading 90.26.
5. Heard the submissions of both sides. The short point for determination is whether the product imported by the appellants is liquid meter classified under sub-heading 9028.20 or liquid flowmeter under Chapter Heading 90.26. I find that the department has relied on the description of the product given in the invoice and in the bill of entry whereas the appellants relied on the catalogue supplied by the manufacturer. Now reading of the catalogue I find that the product Model SN 25E is indicated in the catalogue and the application of the product has been shown as "the meters are used for volumetric measurement as it nowhere specifies whether it is designed or calibrated to show that flow of liquid per unit of time; that unit of time is crucial in this case; that the catalogue only shows that the instrument is designed or calibrated to measure the volume of the product. I, therefore, find that catalogue is more reliable than the description given in the invoice.
6. I also find that the appellants placed reliance ori HSN classification and the Notes incorporated under Chapter sub-headings; that both chapter Headings 90.26 and 90.28 appeared in the HSN; that in the Notes at page 1511 under Section XVIII flowmeter and liquid meter have been defined. It has also been defined that the apparatus which merely indicates the total amount of liquid delivered over a period are classified as supply meters in Heading 90.28.
6. Looking to the catalogue and the Notes in the HSN I find that the product is akin to liquid meter as neither in the catalogue nor in the invoice it has been specified that the product apparatus is capable of measuring the flow of liquid per unit of time. Having regard to these facts I hold that the product is a liquid meter classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 9028.20. In the result the appeal is allowed. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to the appeallants in accordance with law.
Equivalent 2000 (126) ELT 1033 (Tribunal)