2007(05)LCX0064

In the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata

Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (Technical) and Shri D.N. Panda, Member (Judicial)

Gosai Trading Co.

Versus

Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata

Final Order No. A-855/Kol./2007 dt. 21.5.2007 in Appeal No. C/157/2004

Advocated By -

Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, Consultant for Appellant
Shri J.K. Jha, SDR for Respondent

Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy :

Heard both sides. The appellants imported two items described in the invoice as follows:

(i) Weaving Elastic Assorted (Stock Lot) Clothing accessories
(ii) Bra Hook (Stock Lot) Clothing accessories


Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, ld. Consultant appearing for the appellants states that there is no dispute regarding Item No.(i) above and the same has been cleared. The appeal is against Item No.(ii) above, which has not yet been cleared from customs. The appellants claimed classification of Item No.(ii) above under Sub-heading 8308.10 chargeable to 30% Ad valorem duty whereas the Department has classified the same under Sub-heading 6212.10 chargeable to Rs.30/- per piece. Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay says that the impugned goods are nothing but Hooks and eyes used in the manufacture of brassieres and since they are used in clothing, Heading 8308 is the proper classification for the same. He also states that these are very low priced items priced at 16 paise per piece and hence cannot be subjected to a very high duty of Rs.30/- per piece under Heading 6212. He also produced a sample of the goods in question.


3. Heard the ld. DR appearing for the Department who supports the order passed by the lower authorities. According to the ld. DR, the impugned goods are not mere Hooks and eyes but are Hooks and eyes stitched on to a lace and hence the same constitute parts of brassieres. He also points out that the lower appellate authority has recorded that the appellants had admitted through a letter dated 13.10.03 that they had imported Bra Hooks inserted in knitted or crocheted cloth and therefore these are identifiable as distinct parts of Brassieres and hence merit classification under Heading 6212.


4. After hearing both sides and perusal of case records, we find that the competing Headings read as under:

5. Heading 8308 thus includes hooks as well as eyes of a kind used for cloth, whereas the impugned goods are meant for brassieres, which are classified as clothing accessories. Yet the Heading 8308 can perhaps be read broadly to include hooks and eyes for brassieres also. However, the difficulty in classifying the impugned goods under Heading 8308 lies in the fact that the appellants have not imported hooks and eyes of base metal as such, but they have imported hooks and eyes inserted in cloth. The sample shown to us by the ld. Consultant consists of two parts - one part is made from black cloth containing three hooks and the other part is again made from black cloth of the same material containing three eyes each in three rows. Moreover, though the impugned goods have been described in the invoice as Bra hook, these two parts are actually "hooks and eye tape for brassieres" consisting of metallic hooks and eyes inserted in the cloth tape. These are ready-made components made from cloth tape which can be stitched on to brassieres of the same and similar colour. Secondly, the eyes are placed in three rows spaced apart to enable extending or shortening the brassier length. The cloth portion also ensures that the metallic hooks and eyes do not come in contact with the body of the person wearing the brassieres and cause discomfort. Thus the cloth tape is not merely incidental but has functional uses. For these reasons, it is not possible to classify the hooks and eye tape imported by the appellants as metallic hooks and eyes for clothing under Heading 8308. These are more appropriately classifiable as parts of brassieres under Heading 6212 as these can be readily stitched to adjacent parts of brassieres to manufacture a complete brassier.


6. The arguments advanced by the Id. Consultant regarding the low value of the impugned goods which is 16 paise per piece and the high duty of Rs.30/- per piece under Heading 6212 has been given due consideration by us. We find that the duty rates for the textile chapter, such as, Chapter 62, has been specified as 30% or Rs.30/- per piece, whichever is higher. The legislative intention clearly is to keep out cheaper textile goods from flooding the domestic market and this has been achieved by putting higher alternative specific duty of Rs.30/- per piece. It may not have been the intention of the legislature to impose a higher duty of Rs.30/- per piece in the case of items, like hooks and eye tape for brassieres, which are valued at about 16 paise per piece. The anomaly in the duty rate can perhaps be remedied by issue of a suitable exemption Notification for parts of brassieres, such as, the impugned goods. But the present higher rate of duty by itself cannot be a ground for deciding the classification of the impugned goods outside the Heading 6212 as classification of goods are to be done according to the terms of the Headings, Section and Chapter notes and the Rules of Interpretation contained in the Customs Tariff Act but not on the basis of the duty rates which keep changing from time to time.


7. In view of the above, the appeal fails and the impugned orders are sustained.

Pronounced in the open Court on 21.05.2007.

Equivalent 2007 (081) RLT 0632 (CESTAT-Kol.)

Equivalent 2007 (214) ELT 0301 (Tri.- Kolkata)