1998(08)LCX0131

IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

S/Shri Lajja Ram, Member (T) and S.S. Kang, Member (J)

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS

Versus

HINDUSTAN PRAKASAN TRUST

Final Order No. 820/98-B2, dated 19-8-1998 in Appeal No. C/04/89-B2

CASE CITED

Thomson Press (I) Ltd. v. Collector & Collector v. Bombay Art Printers— 1996 (066) ECR 0676 (Tribunal) — Relied on                                                                                        [Para 6]

Advocated By : Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR, for the Appellant.

None, for the Respondents.

[Order per : Lajja Ram, Member (T)]. - In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the classification of the goods imported - Photopolymer Plate Making System (Plate Maker) used for preparing printing plates by photographic principles. The goods were classified under Heading No. 90.10 of the Customs Tariff at the point of import vide Bill of Entry dated 26-3-1987. The importers paid the appropriate Customs duty and got the goods cleared out of Customs charge. Subsequently, on 29-4-1987 they applied for refund on the ground that the goods should have been classified either under Heading No. 84.42 or under Heading No. 8443.60 of the Customs Tariff. The refund claim was rejected by the Asstt. Collector of Customs after observing the principles of natural justice. On appeal, the Collector of Customs (Appeals) held that the goods in question were classifiable under Heading No. 84.42 of the Customs Tariff.

2. The matter was fixed for hearing on 19-8-1998. When the matter was called, no one appeared for the respondents, M/s. Hindustan Prakasan Trust. The notice for today’s hearing had been issued on 22-6-1998. There is no request for adjournment. As the matter is old in which the goods were imported in the year 1987, we are proceeding to decide the case on merits after hearing Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR, who is present for the appellants/Revenue.

3. Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR, submitted that the items imported worked on the photographic principles and were correctly classifiable under Heading No. 90.10 of the Customs Tariff which covered apparatus and equipment for automatically developing photographic including cinematographic film or paper in rolls or for automatically exposing developed film to rolls of photographic paper. It also include other apparatus and equipment for photographic laboratories. He further explained that Heading No. 84.42 was for machinery apparatus and equipment for preparing or making plates. In this case the item imported was not for making the plate but for printing of the plate to photographic principles. He submitted that while the learned Collector of Customs (Appeals) had correctly described the goods, he had changed the classification to Heading No. 84.42 of the Customs Tariff which was not correct. He referred to the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue.

4. We have carefully considered the matter. During the course of hearing before the Asstt. Collector of Customs, the importers had explained that a photo negative was placed on the plate in the exposure unit and the exposure section was closed. After which the same was washed and dried. This is then fixed in a block for printing.

5. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) had stated in his order that the impugned item was used for preparing printing plate by direct reproduction from a document in the printing press and that the photographic principle was involved.

6. We find that similar matter had come up before the Tribunal in the case of Thomson Press (I) ltd. v. CC, Bombay and CC, Bombay v. Bombay Art Printers - 1996 (066) ECR 0676 (Tribunal), and the Tribunal had held that the automatic plate processor working on photographic principles was classifiable under sub-heading No. 9010.20 of the Customs Tariff and the same were not classifiable either under Heading No. 84.34 or Heading No. 84.35. In that order both the tariff entries referred to by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) had been discussed. Further the process of photo-composition and photo-lithography has also been described.

7. After going through the relevant tariff entries and the description of the goods, we do not agree with the view taken by the learned Collector of Customs (Appeals). We consider that the goods imported were correctly classifiable under Heading No. 90.10 and sub-heading No. 9010.20 of the Customs Tariff.

8. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed.

_______

Equivalent 1999 (107) ELT 204 (Tribunal)

Equivalent 1999 (030) RLT 0145