1998(08)LCX0068

IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

S/Shri P.C. Jain, Member (T) and Shri S.S. Kang, Member (J)

JAGUAR & CO. LTD.

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI

Final Order No. 627/98-B2, dated 7-8-1998 in Appeal No. C/412/97-B2

CASE CITED

Kalaivani Fabrics v. Collector — 1988(10)LCX0033 Eq 1989 (044) ELT 0219 (Mad.) — Referred                             [Para 3]

Advocated By : Shri V.P. Bhasin, Representative, for the Appellant.

Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. - The appellants herein have imported lyflex hose chrome - 12mm. The authorities below have classified the same as under Tariff Heading 83.07 which reads as follows :-

“Flexible tubing of base metal with or without fittings”.

The appellants on the other hand claim classification 8481.90.

2. The authority below has ousted Chapter 84 by giving the following findings :-

“I have considered the submissions made in appeal. It is an undisputed fact that the goods imported are flexible metal shower hose. There is no difference between a pipe and hose for the followings reasons :- A hose has been defined in the conveying water etc. ”Similarly a tube has also been defined by the same dictionary as - “Pipe - a long hollow body”. Thus a hose which is in the nature of a flexible pipe can also be termed as tube. Thus there is no substance in the plea of the appellants that these hoses are not flexible tubes of base metals. Further the definition of a `part’ cited by the appellants is applicable only for ITC purposes and not for classification in the Customs Tariff Act. A careful reading of the Chapter Notes of Chapter 84 and Section XVI leads to the conclusion that articles of Chapters 82 and 83 are excluded from Section XVI. The impugned goods are in fact in the nature of `part’ of a complete shower which is attached to the tap. It can by no stretch of imagination be treated as part of the tap, as it is a complete article by itself. Applying the rule of harmonious construction between Section Note 1(k) to Section XVI and Note 1 to Chapter 83, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the impugned articles shall fall under 83.07 only."

3. Learned Consultant Shri V.P. Bhasin has submitted that these are hoses of Iron and Steel Chrome plated. These are used for bathroom showers since these are known as shower hoses. Hence these are not the flexible tubes under Heading 83.07. He submits that there is difference between a tube and a hose. A `Tube’ is a word of a larger import where a hose is a specie of `tube’ not covered by Tariff Heading 83.07. He has relied upon for this submission, in the Madras High Court Judgment reported in 1988(10)LCX0033 Eq 1989 (044) ELT 0219 (Mad.) = 1989 (023) ECR 0058 (Madras). It was held therein that `peanuts’ are not `ground nut kernels’ because they are not known as such in the market. The same analogy will apply here. He submits, hoses cannot be covered by expression `flexible tubing’. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order.

4. Learned JDR Shri R.S. Sangia on the other hand reiterates the finding of the lower authority.

5. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We observe that the expression flexible tubing mentioned in Tariff Heading 83.07 will cover `tubing’ of all types so long as these are flexible and of base metal. A hose is also a type of `tube’ as held by the lower authority. Therefore Heading 83.07 appears to be more appropriate to the goods imported.

6. Now let us examine the classification contended by the appellants. It is stated that `shower hoses’ are a part of taps. In our view, the hose imported by the appellants cannot be considered to be a part of tap as rightly pointed out by the lower authority. A tap would function even without this hose. Therefore the classification contended by the appellants is not applicable to the goods imported. The finding of the lower authority, therefore, is confirmed. In that view, we dismiss the appeal.

_______

Equivalent 1998 (103) ELT 453 (Tribunal)