2001(01)LCX0107
IN THE CEGAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI
S/Shri Gowri Shankar, Member (T) and J.N. Srinivasa Murthy, Member (J)
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI
Order No. 20/2001-WZB/C-I, dated 3-1-2001 in Appeal No. 573/95
Advocated By : Shri A. Chopra JDR, for the Appellant.
Shri S.N. Kantawala, Advocate, for the Respondent.
[Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - Sharman Synthetics, the respondent to this appeal imported five machines and associated equipment. The function of these machines, as described by the Asst. Collector in his order, which is not questioned by the department, is to subject plastic blanks to shaping, drilling, and turning and other operations, so as to fashion them into buttons for garments. The importer claimed classification of these machines under heading 8477.80 of the Customs Tariff. This was initially not accepted by the department, resulting in an adjudication order passed by the Asst. Collector. In that order, the Asst. Collector accepted the classification claimed by the importer, and the availability of the notification. This order, on an appeal filed by the department, was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence this appeal again by the department.
2. The Heading 8477 is for “Machinery for working rubber or plastics or for the manufacture of products from this material not specified or included elsewhere in this Chapter”. Heading 84.65 includes machine tools for working hard plastics or similar hard materials. It is the department's contention that the buttons are made out of hard plastics and the machines should therefore be classified under heading 84.65. It is also contended that heading 84.77 is specific for certain machines, among which the machines under consideration are not included.
3. This was the basis upon which the classification claimed by the Asst. Collector was disputed initially, and subsequently before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals)'s view on the second ground, that the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonised System of Nomenclature only cites a few machines as illustrations and the list is not exhaustive has to be accepted. The Explanatory Notes say that heading 84.77 includes the type of machine specified therein. This by no means amounts to saying that any other machine is not included. We have primarily to go by the scope of the words in the heading, taking the aid of the Explanatory Notes. It will be evident that a large number of machines, which would be classifiable under 84.77 going by the terms of the heading, would not be so classifiable if one accepts the department's argument. Machines for cutting, trimming, crushing, making compact disc would all have to be excluded. We therefore find no merit in this argument.
4. The Asst. Collector in his order had said that the plastic sheets were “semi-hard” or “semi-supple” to conclude that the plastic was not hard plastic. The terminology that he employs can be used to conclude the contrary. One could say with reason that “semi-supple” plastic is hard plastic. The Commissioner (Appeals) has adopted the view of the Asst. Collector.
5. However while these orders are of no great help, the appeal filed by the department is even less so. There is not the slightest material advanced in support that the blanks in question are hard plastics. The contention that soft plastic cannot be drilled upon is not supported by any evidence and is, on the face of it, unacceptable. Any number of soft materials can be easily drilled. In fact, it might be safer to subject soft material than hard material to impact without danger of breakage. This would be clear from hammering a sheet of rubber and of glass. In any event, in the absence of even a faint whisper in support of the department's contention, we are unable to interfere.
6. Appeal dismissed.
Equivalent 2001 (129) ELT 0512 (Tri. - Mum.)