1997 (3) TMI 261 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Collector's Decision on Goods Classification Under Notification

FAG PRECISION BEARINGS LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, VADODARA

FAG PRECISION BEARINGS LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, VADODARA - 1998 (98) E.L.T. 536 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Interpretation of customs duty exemption notifications.2. Determination of the effective date of a notification.3. Classification of imported goods under relevant tariff headings.Analysis:The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Appeal issued by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) concerning the importation of components of Rollers for Taper Roller bearings. The appellants initially claimed and were allowed the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 85/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1986. However, it was later discovered that the correct exemption should have been under Notification No. 146/86, dated 26-2-1986. A show cause notice was issued for demanding the differential duty, leading to the current appeal.The main argument presented on behalf of the Appellants was that their awareness of the correct notification date should be considered, not the date of publication. The Appellants' counsel contended that they should have been assessed under a different tariff heading, specifically Sl. No. 6(ii) of the table annexed to Notification 146/86, as the imported goods were part of an assembly and not directly part of the roller bearings.The Departmental Representative argued that the effective date of a notification is the date of publication, citing a Supreme Court judgment. Additionally, it was asserted that the Assistant Collector had valid reasons for rejecting the Appellants' arguments on the merits of the case.The Tribunal considered the date of publication of the notification as the relevant date for determining the duty rate, in line with established legal precedent. Regarding the classification of the imported goods, the Appellants contended that the goods should fall under Sl. No. 6(ii) as they were part of a sub-assembly. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that even if the goods were part of a sub-assembly, they still qualified as parts of roller bearings and should be classified under Sl. No. 6(i)(a) of the Notification, rather than a residuary heading like 'others' under Sl. No. 6(ii).Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Collector's decision, ruling that the imported goods were correctly classified under Sl. No. 6(i)(a) of the Notification, and the appeal was rejected.