1990 (6) TMI 162

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the Assistant Collector of Customs (Refunds). 2. The appellant imported a consignment of Heat Exchanger tubes from M/S Toyo Engineering Corporation, Tokyo, Japan under BE 1429/20-12-1985 by vessel JURINA. The supplier along with the consignment sent a package of anti-corrosive coating compound free of charge. The appellants have contended that this was supplied to touch up the tubes at the time of assemblying. As the invoice was separately raised a separate BED 837/12-12-1985 was filed. The goods though declared as of no commercial value was classified under Heading 32.04/12(i) and assessed to duty at 150% + 40% (20% + 5% of 20%). The appellants have submitted that consignment was sent free of charge as it was not indented by them. Hen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iterature and Analysis Tests Certificate to facilitate determination of correct classification. 3. In the grounds of appeal the appellants have submitted that package of anticorrosive coating compound was supplied free of charge along with condenser tube which were imported by them from Japan. The bill of entry was separately filed in respect of these items only at the instance of the Department. While in fact the import of these materials under one consignment is reflected in the documents of imports, they have stated that anti-corrosive coating compound has been supplied by the supplier along with condenser tube for coating the tubes after they had been fitted in. They have submitted that the Accessories (Condition) Rules, 1963 do not ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that the appellants had not made any claim for reclassification under Tariff Item No. 38.01/19 (i) C.T.A. Therefore, he submitted that their claim for re-classification has been made beyond the time limit of 6 months and therefore is time barred as laid down under Section 27 of the Customs Act. He has submitted that the appellants have made a new ground and hence it requires to be rejected. He relied upon the following citations :- (1) Madras Rubber Factory v. Collector of Customs, Madras -1984 (18) E.L.T. 390. (2) Food Corporation of India v. Collector of Customs Madras -1984 (15) E.L.T. 417. (3) Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Collector of Customs Calcutta 1988 (34) E.L.T. 248. As regards the applicability of the Accessories ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Department. They have submitted that the Rules do not provide for importing both the articles and its accessories in the same bill of entry and invoice. On a careful perusal of the Rules, this objection raised by the appellant is well founded. The proper officer has to be satisfied with regard to the accessories, parts and implements and as to its compulsory supply along with that article, and with regard to no separate charge being made by supplier for such supply. There is no finding given on this ground by the Assistant Collector in the order in original. The Collector (Appeals) has not examined this issue regarding applicability of the Rules. He has rejected only on the ground that accessories and main article will have to be covered i....