1999(06)LCX0158

 IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

S/Shri P.C. Jain, Vice President and A.C.C. Unni, Member (J)

RANUTROL LTD.

Versus

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI

Final Order No. 121/99-B2, dated 7-6-1999 in Appeal No. C/129/96-B2

Advocated By : Shri J.S. Agarwal, Advocate, for the Appellant.

Shri K. Panchatcharan, JDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : P.C. Jain, Vice President]. - The goods in dispute before us have been described in the Bill of Entry as temperature bellows. It consists of as mentioned in the impugned order itself (i) Brass Nipple, (ii) Bellow ring, (iii) Spring and (iv) Metal Housing.

2. The authorities below have classified the aforesaid goods under Tariff Heading 8307.90 relating to flexible tubing of base metal falling in the category of others i.e. of other base metal. On the other hand the claim of the appellant is that the imported goods are classifiable under Tariff sub-heading 9032.90 as “parts and accessories of industrial pressure controllers.”

3. Lower appellate authority has held, relying on Explanatory Note to HSN under Tariff Heading 83.07, that flexible tubing of base metal fitted with sockets, joints and other attachments as such also falls under Tariff Heading 83.07. It has been held by the authorities below that spring metal housing and nipple are merely attachments of flexible tubing of short length and would, therefore fall under Tariff Heading 83.07 even though they are used in industrial pressure controllers.

4. Arguments of the ld. Advocate Shri J.S. Agarwal, on the other hand are that, they have not imported flexible tubing at all. Flexible tubing in short length is merely a part of whole thing as described in the Bill of Entry and in the invoices. The goods as such, cannot, therefore, be called flexible tubing at all. Finding of the lower authority that the brass nipple spring and metal housing are merely attachments of the flexible tubing is not correct at all. An assembly of all the parts becomes an essential part of pressure controller and the classification has been rightly declared under Tariff Heading 9032.90. He further points out that identical goods have been imported and cleared by the customs authorities under the said Tariff Heading 93.90, both before and after the present consignment which is before us. He, further, points out that the ld. lower appellate authority has accepted the facts that the part imported as such is going to be used as part of industrial pressure controller. In this view there is no justification submits the ld. Advocate, for classifying the goods under Tariff Heading 8307.90.

5. Ld. JDR Shri K. Panchatcharan, on the other hand reiterates the findings of the lower authorities as already set out above.

6. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We observe that imported goods are not flexible tubing by themselves. They are in the form of assembled parts which has been accepted by the lower authorities as meant for industrial pressure controller. We have also taken note of the fact that the imported goods have been cleared under this Tariff Heading 9032.90 both before and after the consignment.

7. In view of the overall facts and circumstances as mentioned above there is no justification for classifying the goods under Tariff Heading 8307.90. Hence we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.

_______

Equivalent 1999 (112) ELT 418 (Tribunal)

Equivalent 1999 (033) RLT 0120