Advocated By :   Shri B.B. Sarkar, JDR, for the Appellant.

Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate, for the Respondent.

[Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of the craft, Ramlift-VI, imported by the appellant. The importer sought classification of the goods under Heading 8905.90 of the Tariff and the Department was of the view that the goods should be classified under Heading 8905.20. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the classification of the goods under sub-heading 20. On appeal from that order, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the claim of the importer to classify under sub-heading 90. This appeal by the department seeks to restore the classification confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner.

2. There is no dispute that the craft in question falls under heading 89.05 which is for light vessels, fire floats, dredges as floating cranes and other vessels the navigability of which is subsidiary to their main function, floating docks, floating or submersible drilling or production platform. Sub-heading 20 is for floating or submersible drilling or production platform. Sub-heading 90 is the residuary entry “Other”.

3. The contention of the importer was that the Ramlift-VI is a pontoon designed and fitted with equipment on it to render it suitable for driving piles into the seabed. It is, in other words, essentially a pile driver mounted on a hull to enable it to float on water. The Assistant Commissioner has advanced the following reasoning for its classification. The Ramlift-VI is found equipped with “large number of items including column drilling machines and grinding machines and thus capable of carrying out drilling on seabed for any purpose. The equipment floats on water and is equipped with various items in addition to pile guide for driving pile over seabed. Thus the basement or hull, by whatever name called, serves as platform for different equipment aboard.” The explanatory Notes to Heading 89.05 in the Harmonised System of Nomenclature refer to “platforms generally designed for the discovery or exploitation of offshore deposits of oil or natural gas” and similar machines so classifiable.

4. The Commissioner (Appeals) had noted that the drilling platforms that the Assistant Commissioner refers to consisted of a hand-drill, which could be used to bore up to 16 mm. This was in the workshop for making repairs to the equipment. He concludes that the Ramlift-VI was nothing other than a floating crane and floating pile driver.

5. The appeal consists essentially of a reiteration of Assistant Commissioner’s finding. It again emphasises the presence referred to in by the supplier, of a column drilling machine and grinding machine. The same literature shows the presence of these machines in the workshop on board. No material is cited in the appeal to rebut the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the drilling machine is a small machine used for making repairs on board and is entirely incapable of drilling the seabed for oil exploitation or exploration. It is common knowledge that the drills for the latter purpose consist of elaborate and sophisticated machinery required for deep drilling on the seabed through different layers of the earth. They would be completely different from a small machine used for drilling in a machine shop or similar workshop. The presence of a drill and grinding machine are not by themselves characteristics of pontoon as a drilling platform. Nor do we find any other basis to consider the goods as a platform for drilling of oil. The reference made by the Assistant Commissioner to the Explanatory Notes does not justify describing any vessel used for any purpose on the sea to be a drilling platform. In short, we find a total absence of material to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals)’s finding that the Ramlift-VI is anything other than a floating pile driver.

6. Appeal dismissed.

Equivalent 2001 (132) ELT 0316 (Tri. - Mumbai)