TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (2) TMI 209
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under Tariff Heading 89.06 of the CTA 1975 as "Hull"; alternatively under Tariff Heading 89.05. The authorities below, however, have treated the aforesaid goods as "other floating structures" not having the character of vessel as under Tariff Heading 89.07. The original authority classified under Tariff Heading 89.07 relying on general Explanatory Notes under Tariff Heading 89.07 inasmuch as the said goods were meant for use as floating hotel. 3. Lower appellate authority has held that the expression Hull has not been specifically defined either in the Customs Act or in the CTA 1975. However as per definition in the various dictionaries 'hull' can be said to be the body/shell/frame (excluding the masts, rigging etc.) of a ship/vesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 89.01 to 89.06. 5. He further finds, relying on Apex Court judgment in the case of Collector of Customs v. Kumudam Publication (P) Ltd. - 1997 (96) E.L.T. 226 (S.C.) that end-use or function of any goods is not entirely irrelevant on the question of classification. Since the goods are going to be used as a floating hotel, he treats the goods as 'other foating structures' which fall under Tariff Heading 89.07. 6. It is against the aforesaid order that the appellants herein have filed this appeal. 7. Ld. Sr. Advocate, Shri Bhaskar Sen for the appellants has urged that there is a total non-application of mind by the lower appellate authority when it holds that the imported goods are not navigable. In this connection he subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otes under Tariff Heading 89.07, he points out that this heading "covers certain floating structures" not having the character of the vessels. They are generally stationary while in use and include..." (emphasis supplied by the ld. Advocate). He submits that the goods as have been imported have come over the oceans and seas under tow of another Ship. Therefore, apart from the various certificates, its navigability cannot at all doubted, because the navigability gets tested in respect of the present goods by its journey from Singapore to Calcutta over high seas and oceans. He, therefore, submits that it is an erroneous finding of the lower authorities that the imported hull has no navigability. 9. He points out that merely because of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duced by different authorities, ld. Advocate submits that each authority looks at an article from its own angle and not from the angle of the Customs Act. Therefore, Certificate of Registration or Port clearance certificate etc. is not determinative of classification. For this proposition ld. Advocate relies on 1998 (100) E.L.T. 275 - Commissioner of Customs v. EID Parry (I) Ltd. Referring again to the various Certificates he submits that one certificate describes the goods as 'vessel' and another as "hull" and third describes it as a "ship". It is not the case of the appellants that the imported goods are a Ship. In broad sense, ld. Advocate submits, everything is a vessel including the floating structures. Therefore, it does not mean that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellants herein in support of his contention that the goods imported are a 'hull' which is nothing but a part of a Vessel. The imported goods are also navigable otherwise the certificates would not have been issued. It is merely an ipse dixit of the lower authority that the imported goods is not a Vessel because it is not navigable. The Tariff Heading 89.01 to 89.05 are for specific types of vessels. Tariff Heading 89.06 is residuary heading for all other vessels. Since the imported goods do not fall under any of the earlier tariff heading i.e. 89.01 to 89.05, it would clearly fall under Tariff Heading 89.06. This is also made clear by the Chapter Note under Chapter 89, when it says that a hull is to be classified under Tariff Heading....