1993 (7) TMI 182

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ave got an agreement with their overseas Collaborators had imported technical/engineering drawings and printed manual and had declared the same as "drawings in original form and manuals" as seen from the Order-in-Original. However, on examination the goods were found to be only photostat copies of drawings and the learned Adjudicating Authority following a previous decision by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras for similar goods had classified both the drawings and the manuals under Heading No. 49.11. The Collector (Appeals) has accepted the contention of the appellants so far as printed manuals are concerned. The issue of valuation was also involved which the Collector (Appeals) has decided and is not involved in the present appeal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o. 49.01. Unless it is covered by some more specific heading and on this ground also the goods could not be classified under the residuary entry 49.11. The Collector (Appeals) has dealt with at length in paras 20 onwards and particularly in paras 23, 24, 25 and 26 as to why the engineering drawings which are not classifiable under Heading 49.06 would go to the residuary entry 49.11. 4. We are in agreement with his views in the Order-in-Appeal. The crux of the matter in our opinion is the scope of the term 'drawings' in Chapter Note 4(a) for the purpose of classification of goods under Heading 49.01. The said Chapter Note is reproduced for facility of reference so that the word 'drawings' can be interpreted in the proper perspective. "....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lassifiable under 49.01. 8. In this behalf we have also considered the Tribunal decision in the case of Roto Ink (P) Ltd. v. CC, Bombay reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 398 (Tri.) = 1990 (28) ECR 25 (Cegat SB-C), but the said decision appears to be distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In that case the technical literature contained actual articles and which were or could be bound in a book form. One other argument raised on behalf of the appellants was that entry 49.11 covered only advertising material. This is also not correct since sub-heading alone 4911.10 covers trade advertising material and 49.11 other printed matter. The present goods, namely, technical drawings are more akin to 'designs' which are specifically covered ....