Classification under Heading 98.03 upheld for courier-bagged drawings and designs, with customs duty and demand sustained.

Drawings and designs imported through courier baggage were held classifiable under Heading 98.03, with customs duty chargeable for the relevant period because courier baggage was not excluded from Chapter 98 at that time. The later amendment introducing an exclusion could not alter the position for the earlier imports. The amended show cause notice did not cause prejudice on limitation because the original notice had already invoked the extended period, so the enhanced demand remained sustainable. The duty demand and classification were therefore upheld, and the importer's challenge failed on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether drawings and designs imported through courier baggage were classifiable under Heading 98.03 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and liable to customs duty, and whether the demand was sustainable despite the amended show cause notice.

Analysis: The import of drawings and designs was made through courier baggage and the value was not declared to customs at the time of import. The first show cause notice had already invoked the extended period of limitation, so the later corrigendum enhancing the demand did not place the importer at any additional disadvantage on limitation. At the material time, there was no exclusion of courier baggage from Chapter 98, and the exclusion was introduced only later by amendment to Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 98. The classification under Heading 98.03 was therefore proper. The duty demand was also supported by the principle laid down by the Supreme Court that such goods were classifiable under Heading 98.03 and chargeable to duty for the relevant prior period.

Conclusion: The classification under Heading 98.03 and the duty demand were upheld against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the merits of classification and duty liability, and the demand confirmed in the impugned order stood sustained.

---