2004(03)LCX0048

IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI

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

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI

Versus

AVINKA LEATHERS

Order No. A/372/2004-WZB/C-I, dated 16-3-2004 in Appeal No. C/391/98-Bom.

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

Shri Anil Balani, Advocate, for the Respondent.

[Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. - The respondents herein imported a consignment of solenoid valve for dispenser and casing for dispenser claiming classification of the solenoid valve under Customs Tariff Heading 8481.80 and casing dispenser under Customs Tariff Heading 3926.90 under Bill of Entry dated 30-6-1997. Clearance of the goods was sought without a licence as freely importable goods in terms of the Import-Export Policy 1997-2002. The goods were examined and it was found that solenoid valve consists of solenoid valve fitted with aerosol valve and spray nozzle and a populated PCB connected to it along with electric switch and battery lead. The casing for the dispenser was found to be plastic cabinet along with screws. When the solenoid valve gets fitted in the cabinet it becomes an automatic aerosol dispenser and only electrical cell and scent bottle were required to be placed in it for making it functional. The department was of the view that the goods were covered by Customs Tariff Heading 9616.10 which covers scent sprays and similar toilet sprays by virtue of application of Rule 2(a) read with Rule 4 of the General Rules for Interpretation of the Customs Tariff. The goods falling under this heading also requires specific licence for their clearance which the importer did not possess. Hence the import appeared to be in contravention of the law and the goods liable to confiscation and the importers liable to penalty. The issue of show cause notice was waived, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs held that the goods fell for classification under 961610.00 of ITC (HS) and required specific licence which was not produced; he hence confiscated the goods with option for redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 1 lakh and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the importers; the lower appellate authority accepted the claim of the importers regarding classification under Customs Tariff Heading 84.24 and set aside the confiscation and penalty; hence this appeal by the Revenue.

2. We have heard the learned DR, Shri K.K. Srivastava and the learned Counsel Shri Anil Balani. The goods imported after being fitted with liquid fragrance and dry cell battery will function as automatic aerosol dispenser for spraying fragrance, deodorizers, etc. (liquid) in measured doses at regular intervals. They are mounted on the wall. The catalogue describes the goods as used for control of flying insects or odours in houses, processing units, dairies, restaurants, etc. The HSN Explanatory Notes to Heading 96.16 excludes dispersing or spraying appliances of Heading 84.24 from its coverage. Going by the description of the goods they appear to be covered under Heading 84.24 and are therefore excluded from Heading 96.16. The import is therefore permitted.

3. In the light of the above discussion we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.

_______

Equivalent 2004 (168) ELT 52 (Tri. - Mumbai)