1987 (6) TMI 290

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... coil form of varying dia and length for the manufacture of blades/knives for leather machinery". The Appellants sought classification of the goods under Heading 82.06 CTA but the goods were assessed to customs duty under Heading 73.33/40 CTA. Aggrieved appellants filed an appeal before the Appellate Collector who rejected the claim for assessment of the goods under Heading 73.15(1) CTA and confirmed assessment made by the Asstt. Collector. Hence the present appeal. 2. Sh. S. Ganesh, the Ld. Counsel for the Appellants submitted that it is not correct to say that the Appellants desired assessment under Heading 73.15(1) though this assessment would give them partial relief. He submitted that the Appellants throughout asked for clarificatio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... benefit of interpretative Rule 2(a) and be classified under Heading 82.06. 3. Sh. Ganesh on behalf of the Appellants referred to a letter dated 4-3-82 from the Appellants to the Appellate Collector of Customs. In this letter the Appellants listed 11 operations which they would conduct on the imported goods. Shri Ganesh submitted that in fact all these operations cannot be said as manufacturing operations and only operations Nos. 5,6 & 7 listed in the letter could be considered as finished operations. In the appeal dated 17-12-81 filed before the Collector (Appeals), the Appellants gave, as mentioned by Sh. Ganesh, the details of operations carried out on the imported goods by the supplier. These operations are as follows: (a) The spe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 4. Sh. D.K. Saha, Ld. JDR opposing the arguments submitted that there is no question at all of applying interpretative Rule 2(a). He pointed out that according to the invoice and the bill of entry, the imported goods were "semi-finished cold steel strip in carburised form". The fact that these goods were described as being intended for the manufacture of blades/knives did not mean that the imported goods were anything other than raw materials. Shri Saha submitted that there was nothing in the records to justify the claim of the Appellants that the imported goods acquired the essential characteristics of knives/blades. According to him, the description in the invoice and the bill of entry prove to the contrary; the imported goods were only ....