2002(07)LCX0170

IN THE CEGAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI

Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J) and Shri J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)

HITKARI TRADING CORPORATION

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUS., ACC, MUMBAI

Order No. 2102/2002-WZB/C-I, dated 30-7-2002 in Appeal No. C/91/2002-Mum.

Advocated By :   Shri Z.B. Nagarkar, Consultant, for the Appellant.

Shri Virag Gupta, JDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. - The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) who has upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner who has classified “Esband endless conveyor belts type SAO 75” imported by the appellants herein under sub-heading 5911.90 of the Customs Tariff, rejecting the claim of the importers for classification under Customs Tariff Heading 59. 10.

2. We have heard both sides.

3. Both the authorities below have found that the goods are endless conveyor belts. However, classification under CTH 59.10 has been ruled out by the authorities below on an application of Note 6(a) to Chapter 59 which excludes “transmission or conveyor belting of textile material, of a thickness of less than 3 mm” from the coverage of Heading 59.10, since the thickness of the imported goods was less than 3 mm. The contention of the importers that Note 6(a) will not be attracted in the case of belts is well founded. Once the provisions of Note 6(a) are not applicable to the goods in question the claim of the appellants for classification under Heading 59.10 which covers “transmission or conveyor belts or belting of textile materials ..........” is correct and classification under Heading 5911.90 (Heading 59.11 covers textile products and articles for technical uses specified in Note 7 to Chapter 59) is not sustainable.

4. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any, due to the appellants, in accordance with law.

_______

Equivalent 2002 (146) ELT 0103 (Tri. - Mumbai)