2004(02)LCX0162

IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI

Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J) and Shri Moheb Ali M., Member (T)

Commissioner of customs (import), mumbai

Versus

videocon appliancEs ltd.

Order No. A/209/2004-WZB/C-I, dated 10-2-2004 in Appeal No. C/1111/97-Bom.

CASE CITED

Videocon Appliances v. Collector — 2000(12)LCX0270 Eq 2001 (127) ELT 0836 (Tribunal) — Relied on........... [Para 3]

REPRESENTED BY :        Shri K.K. Srivastava, JDR, for the Appellant.

Shri R.D. Soni, Advocate, for the Respondent.

[Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. - The respondents herein imported timer switches for washing machines set wash/spin time for desired duration. The goods were assessed under Customs Tariff Heading 91.07 rejecting the importer’s claim for classification under CTH 8450.90 as parts of washing machines and seized the goods since clearance of the goods was permissible only under cover of specific import licence, which the importers did not possess. The adjudicating authority directed release of the goods with a caution to the importers to produce import licence for the next consignment. The Revenue challenges this order, contending that the goods ought to have been confiscated and penalty imposed.

2. We have heard both sides.

3. The importers claimed classification of the goods as parts of washing machines but subsequently stated that they would apply for a specific licence and requested that a lenient view be taken. However, we find that classification of the goods have now been decided by the Tribunal in the importer’s own case as seen from Order No. 1951/2000-B, dated 1-12-2000 [2000(12)LCX0270 Eq 2001 (127) ELT 0836 (T)] wherein the Tribunal has upheld the classification under 8450.90 as parts of washing machines, setting aside the classification under Customs Tariff Heading 91.07, which covers “time switches with clock or watch movement or with synchronous motor”, as the goods in question were simple timers and not time switches with watch or clock movements. In view of the above order upholding the classification claimed by the importers, we see no grounds for interference with the impugned order. Accordingly we uphold the same and reject the appeal.

_______

Equivalent 2004 (167) ELT 0156 (Tri. - Mumbai)