1999(05)LCX0130
IN THE CEGAT, EASTERN BENCH, CALCUTTA
Shri Lajja Ram, Member (T) and Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA
Versus
MULLER ENTERPRISES
Order No. A-500/CAL/99, dated 21-5-1999 in Appeal No. C/R-80/97
Advocated By : Shri T. Premkumar, SDR, for the Appellant.
None, for the Respondent.
[Order per : Lajja Ram, Member (T)]. - In this appeal filed by the Revenue the matter relates to the classification of goods imported - Adhesive Pads with loose sheet of papers cut to shape and size and having a self-adhesive coating in each sheet for self-sticking. The Additional Commissioner of Customs had held that the goods imported for Import Policy, 1992-97 would fall under Heading No. 48231100.90 of the ITC (HS) Classification and they are not freely importable. They required a specific licence to cover the importation of the goods.
2. On appeal the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) held that the goods were rightly classifiable under Heading No. 48.20 of the Customs Tariff and were classifiable under sub-heading No. 4820.90. He held that the goods were allowable under the special import licence.
3. After setting aside the Order passed by the Additional Commissioner, the original authority was directed to classify the goods under Customs Tariff Heading 4820.90 and examine the import licence requirement accordingly.
4. When the matter was called, no one appeared for the respondents. As the matter is old in which the goods were imported in the year, 1996 and the goods were claimed to be perishable we are proceeding to deal with the matter on merits, after hearing Shri T. Premkumar, learned SDR.
5. Shri T. Premkumar, learned SDR submitted that the classification under the Customs Tariff was not an issue before the learned Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). He had gone beyond his jurisdiction to determine the classification under the Customs Tariff. The goods were consumer goods and required specific licence for their import. He also submitted that the Heading under the I.T.C. Policy were not similar in all respects with the Headings/Sub-headings in the Customs Tariff. He pleaded that the view taken by the adjudicating authority was correct.
6. We have carefully considered the matter. We find that the goods in question were in the term of Pads for noting the messages and had self-adhesive properties only on the top. The whole of the paper was not having adhesive properties.
7. We also find that while the sub-headings between the Customs Tariff and the Import Tariff differed in some respects, there was no difference as between the main Headings. Heading No. 48.20 under the Customs Tariff covered the following :-
|
| “48.20 | Registers, account books, note books, order books, receipt books, letter pads, memorandum pads, diaries and similar articles, exercise books, blotting-pads, binders (loose-leaf or other), folders, file covers, manifold business forms, interleaved carbon sets and other articles of stationery, of paper or paper-board; albums for samples or for collections and book covers, of paper or paperboard” |
8. We find that the Import Trade (Control) Classification under Heading No. 48.20 also covered the same as under :-
|
| “48.20 | Registers, account books, note books, order books, receipt books, letter pads, memorandum pads, diaries and similar articles, exercise books, blotting-pads, binders (loose-leaf or other), folders, file covers, manifold business forms, interleaved carbon sets and other articles of stationery, of paper or paper-board; albums for samples or for collections and book covers, of paper or paperboard” |
9. Similarly, the Heading No. 48.23 both under the Customs Tariff and the Import Classification had the same description.
10. We have gone through the reasoning of the learned Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) that for Customs duty purposes, the goods were correctly classifiable under Heading No. 48.20 and sub-heading No. 4820.90. On that analogy, we consider that under the Import (Control) Classification, the goods in question will be classifiable under sub-heading No. 48209000.10 which covered the goods otherwise classifiable under Heading No. 48.20, but which were of a kind classified under Consumer Goods. The Customs Authorities have considered them as consumer goods. Their import was permissible under special import licence which the respondents had offered to produce for clearance of the goods.
11. The appellate authority while holding that the goods were classifiable under Customs sub-heading 4820.90, had asked the original authority to examine the import licence requirement accordingly. After giving our careful thought and consideration, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the learned Commissioner (Appeals).
12. In the circumstances, we do not find any merits in the appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is rejected. Ordered accordingly.
_______
Equivalent 1999 (112) ELT 729 (Tribunal)
Equivalent 1999 (033) RLT 0512