TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (5) TMI 416
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....utter Suction Dredger" in operational condition along with "Standard spares and accessories, pipes", etc. including Multicat-2 numbers and Anchor Boat - 1 number and "Dredging Pumping Unit" to be used with Cutter Suction Dredger- 2 numbers, "Engines" -2 numbers along with "Standard spares and accessories" under Charter Agreement between Jung Hsing Marine Construction Co. Ltd. and the Respondent on re-export basis. The goods were classified under Chapter Heading 8905 10 00 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 claiming the benefit of NIL rate of duty under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 under Sl. No. 353A thereof. The respondents obtained a Certificate from the surveyors. The Assistant Commissioner verified the details of the Bill o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ipes (vii) Pumps (viii) Wire mesh (ix) Outward Engine Boat 4. Revenue is aggrieved over the impugned order on the following grounds:- (i) The Commissioner (Appeals) did not indicate any reasons for treating the dredging pump, engines, pipes, etc., as integral part of dredger. It is obvious that at the time of import of these goods are under different ownership i.e. the dredger is hired one and the dredging pumps etc. were purchased by M/s. Dharti dredging and Infrastructure Ltd. (sic) (ii) Further, it is quite pertinent to note that the importer purchased dredging pump and other goods for regular usage and not exclusively for the dredger in question. The dredger will be re-exported after completion of hire period but the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....161) E.L.T. 642 (Tri.-Chennai) on the ground that "the goods involved are different". But, at the same time, Commissioner (A) relied upon Boskalis case even though the goods involved are different and thus the findings of the Commissioner (A) in the said order appears to be self contradictory. (viii) In view of the foregoing note, it appears that the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not legal and proper and the same needs to be appealed against. 5. The learned Advocate for the respondent stated that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the CESTAT in the case of Boskalis Dredging India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Bhubaneswar (cited supra). 6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 54. On the other hand, the adjudicating authority has held the same to be classifiable under Heading 8413.19 which has a specific heading for "pumps for liquids, whether or not fitted with a measuring device; liquid elevators". He has also held that the item cannot be classifiable under sub-heading 8905.10 as claimed by the importer by virtue of Section Note 2(e) of Section XVII as noted supra. The item is required to be classified in the appropriate heading and in view of exclusion clause in Section Note 2(e) of Section XVII, the classification adopted by the lower authority under Heading 8413.19 is proper and correct which is upheld by setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order." 6.1 While arriving at the above conclusion, the Tri....