Tribunal exempts imported designs from duty under Customs Notification 112/87. Auxiliary duty not applicable. Appeal allowed.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that the imported designs and drawings were eligible for exemption from auxiliary duty under Customs Notification 112/87. The Tribunal emphasized that auxiliary duty is chargeable in addition to any customs duties, including those under the Customs Tariff Act. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.

---

---

Issues:
1. Determination of liability for auxiliary duty on imported designs and drawings.
2. Interpretation of Customs Notification 112/87 regarding exemption from auxiliary duty.

Analysis:
1. The appeal concerned the liability of imported designs and drawings to auxiliary duty of customs under Customs Notification No. 111/87. The main issue was whether the goods were chargeable to a 40% ad valorem duty or exempt from such duty under Customs Notification 112/87. The goods were classified under Heading 4906.00 of the Customs Tariff Act for basic duty, with no dispute on classification or additional duty. The auxiliary duty was imposed at 50% of the goods' value under the Finance Act of 1987. The appellants argued that since no basic customs duty was levied under the Customs Tariff Act, auxiliary duty should not apply. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, emphasizing that auxiliary duty is chargeable in addition to any customs duties, including those under the Customs Tariff Act.

2. The debate centered on the interpretation of Customs Notification 112/87, which exempted specified goods from auxiliary duty. The notification listed "paper money, printed books, maps, and plans" among the exempted items. The appellants contended that "plans" in the notification should include "plans and drawings" as per the Customs Tariff entry. Conversely, the Department argued that "plans" should be interpreted literally without including drawings. Various dictionaries were cited to support the contention that "plans" encompassed "drawings" and "designs." The Tribunal agreed with this interpretation, stating that the term should be understood in its ordinary sense, covering both plans and drawings.

3. The Tribunal rejected arguments regarding the technical know-how cost and the classification of designs and drawings as goods chargeable to customs duty. These grounds were not raised before lower authorities and were beyond the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that the imported goods were eligible for exemption from auxiliary duty under Customs Notification 112/87. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.

---