1988(11)LCX0009

BEFORE THE CEGAT, EAST REGIONAL BENCH, CALCUTTA

S/Shri S. Kalyanam, Member (J) and S.K. Bhatnagar, Member (T)

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

Versus

FOREIGN FASHION

Order No. 335(A)(Cal.)/88-335(c). dated 21-11-1988 in Appeal No. CD (Cal.) - 240/88 and Stay Petition No. 181/88

Advocated By: Shri M.N. Biswas, SDR, for the Appellant.

Shri D.L. Basu Roy, Consultant, for the Respondent.

[Order per : S. Kalyanam, Member (J)]. - Since we propose to dispose of the appeal itself today, the stay petition filed seeking study of the impugned order pending appeal is dismissed.

2. The appeal is filed by the Collector of Customs, Calcutta and is directed against the order of the Collector (Appeals), Customs, Calcutta, dated 1-12-1987 setting aside the order-in-origin passed by the Deputy Collector of Customs, dated 9-9-1987 and holding that the goods imported by the respondent viz. steering wheel covers are not accessories permissible for import under the relevant licence produced by the respondent.

3. The short question that is for consideration is whether the “steering wheel covers” imported by respondent are accessories and permissible for import under para 265(6) of the Import and Export Policy 1985-88 or consumer goods not permissible for import under the said licence in terms of Appendix 2, Para B, Sl. No. 121.

4. In regard to identical goods in the impugned order the Collector (Appeals) has placed reliance on the ruling of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Kapoor Industries, Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, wherein the Special Bench has held that “since the Steering wheel covers provided a better grip to the driver on the steering wheel, they could be said to be an accessory and hence covered by the Import Licence".

5. Shri Biswas, the Ld. S.D.R., contended that though the Board felt that the order of the Special Bench referred to supra was not correct, it was not appealed against as the amount involved was not much. The Ld. S.D.R. urged that it is open to the department to prefer an appeal in respect of the same goods covered by the impugned order, a contra Ruling of the Special Bench notwithstanding; and seek modification of the same from this Tribunal. It was submitted that the Steering wheel covers are only luxury items and they have nothing to do with steering wheel of motor cars except to give an additional comfort to the driver. This has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the motor vehicle.

6. The Ld. S.D.R. also contended that these will also be consumer items not permissible for import under the licence produced and further submitted that even in the impugned order, the Ld. Collector (Appeals) has also held this to be a consumer item.

7. Shri Basu Roy, the Ld. counsel concluded that the issue is squarely covered by the ruling of the Special Bench and placed reliance on the same.

8. The Ld. counsel further submitted that the goods imported are only accessories and are not consumer goods.

9. We have carefully considered the submissions made before us. We have gone through the Special Bench Ruling cited by the Ld. counsel and find that the issue is squarely covered by the ratio therein which we adopt and accept. We are not inclined to accede to the submissions of the Ld. S.D.R. that the Special Bench ruling was not appealed against because the amount involved therein was not much. We would also like to note that for Customs purposes, the department itself has classified the product for duty under sub-heading 8708.99 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, dealing with parts and accessories of the motor vehicles and this has also been admitted in the impugned order. The Ld. S.D.R. merely cited that it is classified for Customs purposes as accessories because the duty was more. The Ld. S.D.R. stated that he would not be able to say anything more about it. On careful consideration of the entire matter we are inclined to hold that the issue is squarely covered by the ruling of the Special Bench referred to above and we, therefore, sustain the impugned order appealed against and dismiss the appeal.

10. Announced in the open Court.

______

Equivalent 1989 (40) ELT 124 (Tribunal)