2011(08)LCX0173

IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI [COURT NO. I]

S/Shri S.S. Kang, Vice-President and P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (T)

Jama Corporation Pvt. Ltd.

Versus

Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva

Final Order No. A/392/2011-WZB/C-I(CSTB), dated 4-8-2011 in Appeal No. C/718/2010

Advocated By -

Shri Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, Consultant, for the Appellant.
Shri V.K. Singh, SDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : S.S. Kang, Vice-President]. -

Heard both sides. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeal).


2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant made import of goods declaring the same in the Bill of Entry as "M/C for use in leather footwear industries Injection Moulding of PVC/TPR/EVA Soles with STD ACC Model Global BS/150". The machine was imported from China. The appellant claimed the classification under Chapter Heading 8453 of the Customs Tariff. The adjudicating authority after affording an opportunity of personal hearing held that the machine in question is classifiable under Chapter Heading 8477.1000 of the Customs Tariff which covers Injection Moulding Machine. The adjudicating authority also held that the machine in question is liable to Anti-Dumping Duty at 174% adv as specified in the entry appearing at serial No. 11 of the Table contained in the Notification No. 39/2010-Cus., dated 23-3-2010. The appellants filed an appeal against the adjudication order and the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal vide impugned order.


3. The contention of the appellant is that the machine in question is in-tended for use as an Injection Moulding Machine for footwear soles of leather shoes. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of leather shoes therefore the machine in question is classifiable under Chapter Sub Heading 8453 of the Customs Tariff. The appellants also submitted that as per the provisions of Notification No. 39/2010-Cus. the goods "Plastic Processor or Injection Moulding Machines" imported from China are liable for Anti-Dumping Duty. However, the multicolor/multimould machinery for making footwear, Rotary injection moulding machinery for making footwear and footwear sole/strap/heel injection moulding machine classified under Customs Tariff Classification No. 8453 are excluded from imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty. In the present case, as the machine in question is Injection Moulding Machine hence comes under the excluded category as provided under the Notification imposing Anti-Dumping Duty.


4. The contention of Revenue is that the machine in question is for In-jection Moulding of sole out of synthetic polymeric material like PVC cannot be classified under Tariff Heading 8453 of the Customs Tariff which covers "machinery for preparing, tanning or working hides, skins or leather or for making or repairing footwear or other articles of hides, skins or leather, other than sewing machines." Therefore, the machine is rightly classifiable under Sub-Heading 8477.1000 of the Customs Tariff which covers Injection Moulding Machine. In respect of the levy of Anti-Dumping Duty, the contention is that under Notification No. 39/2010-Cus., only Injection Moulding Machines classifiable under Sub-Heading 8453 of the Customs Tariff are excluded from levy of Anti-Dumping Duty. In the present case, as the machine in question is not classifiable under Sub-Heading 8453 and the same is classified under Chapter Heading 8477.1000 of the Customs Tariff hence liable for Anti-Dumping Duty.


5. We find that the appellant claimed the classification of the Machine under Heading 8453 of the Customs Tariff which covers "machinery for preparing, tanning or working hides, skins or leather or for making or repairing footwear or other articles of hides, skins or leather, other than sewing machines." The machine in question undisputedly an Injection Moulding Machine for manufacture of footwear soles. As per the product literature produced by the appellant, the machine is meant for Injection Moulding of Synthetic Polymer namely PVC, TPR and EVA to generate sole for footwear. As per the HSN Explanatory Notes under Heading 8453 covers "machinery for preparing hides or skins (including furskins) ready for tanning, machinery for effecting the tanning, machinery for effecting the tanning (including parchmenting) processes, and machinery for the subsequent finishing operations. It also covers machinery used for making or repairing articles of hide, skins or leather (e.g. for making leather footwear, gloves or travel goods). As from the product literature we find that the machine in question is not for making or repairing footwear or other articles of hides, skins or leather therefore, the same cannot be classifiable under Chapter Heading 8453 of the Customs Tariff. On the other hand, we find that Heading 8477.1000 of the Customs Tariff" specifically covers Injection Moulding Machines therefore, is rightly classifiable under Heading 8477.1000 of the Customs Tariff.


6. In respect of levy of Anti-Dumping Duty we find that Notification No. 39/2010-Cus. levies Anti-Dumping Duty in respect of Plastic Injection Moulding Machine classifiable under Chapter Sub Heading 8477.1000 of the Customs Tariff imported from Republic of China. The Notification excludes only Injection Moulding Machine classified under Heading 8453 of the Customs Tariff. In the present case, as discussed above, the machine in question is not classifiable under Heading 8453 of the Customs Tariff and the same is classifiable under Chapter Sub Heading 8477.1000 of the Customs Tariff. Therefore, the same is liable to Anti-Dumping Duty.


7. In view of the above discussion, we find no infirmity in the impugned order and we dismiss the appeal.

(Operative part pronounced in Court)

Equivalent 2012 (277) ELT 0172 (Tri. - Mumbai)