2002(03)LCX0205

IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI

S/Shri G.R. Sharma, Member (T) and P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI

Versus

SURI SONS

Final Order No. 80/2002-D, dated 21-3-2002 in Appeal No. C/24/2002-D

Advocated By :   Shri Hitesh Shah, JDR, for the Appellant.

Shri Satinder Kapoor, Advocate, for the Respondent.

[Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. - This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) vide which he had reversed the order-in-original of the Deputy Commissioner dated 22-11-2000 who disallowed the classification of the product in question under product group 89/75 for DEPB credit as silk made-ups.

2. The respondents had filed shipping bill dated 21-9-2000 for silk made-ups p/I silk embroidered boxes of various sizes declaring total FOB value Rs. 22,70,389.50. They classified their product under product group 89/75 for DEPB credit, as silk made-ups. But the Deputy Commissioner did not accept their classification and observed that the export product was not covered under the DEPB of Drawback. The Commissioner (Appeals) had reversed that order of the Deputy Commissioner through the impugned order.

3. We have heard both sides and gone through the facts on record.

4. The facts are not much in dispute. The export product in respect of which the shipping bill dated 21-9-2000 was presented, was declared as silk-embroidered boxes. The respondents, no doubt, claimed the classification of those boxes as textile made-ups under Serial No. 75 of the Textile Group 89 of the DEPB. But, in our view, that classification was not rightly accepted by the Deputy Commissioner. It cannot be disputed that as per general rule of interpretation, an item is to be classified under the Heading which provides more specific description under the Customs Tariff. The product was classifiable under Chapter Heading 42.02 as jewellery boxes, especially when these were also in the market known as such. These boxes could not be by any stretch of definition of made-ups as definied in Section Note 7 of Section XI which pertains to ‘Textile and Textile Articles’, in the Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, described as ‘Made-Ups’. Moreover, under Section Note 1 of Section XI articles of textile classifiable under Chapter Heading 42.02 stand, excluded from the purview of this section. Therefore, embroidered silk boxes sought to be exported by the respondents could not be treated as textile made-ups. By merely covering those boxes with silk-embroidery, the same could not be said to be textile made-ups, but could only be treated as jewellery boxes. The reasoning adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the boxes were manufactured mainly with the silk/textile and to give it a shape, cardboard/plywood was reinforced, for holding the same to be textile made-ups item, does not appeal to the reasons. The learned Commissioner has failed to appreciate that firstly the boxes were prepared with a cardboard/plywood, and thereafter only those were covered with the silk embroidery. The boxes remained the boxes and their character did not stand changed by merely covering them with the embroidered silk. The boxes were known as jewellery boxes and were specifically covered under Heading 42.02 of the Customs Tariff. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) without assigning any cogent convincing reasons had reversed the order-in-original of the Deputy Commissioner and as such the impugned order passed by him, cannot be legally sustained. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order-in-appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the order-in-original of the Deputy Commissioner.

5. In view of the above, the appeal of the Revenue stands accordingly allowed.

_______

Equivalent 2002 (144) ELT 345 (Tri. - Del.)

Equivalent 2002 (051) RLT 0797