TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 181
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court to assail the validity of the Order-in-Original notwithstanding the existence of a statutory remedy of appeal, primarily on the ground that the same is based on a wholly erroneous understanding and appreciation of the judgement dated 14 November 2019 which was rendered inter partes in W.P.(C) 9225/2019 titled as Khandwala Enterprise Private Limited vs. Union of India and Ors 2019:DHC:5939-DB. 3. The grievance of the petitioner essentially is that the second respondent appears to have construed the judgment rendered in Khandwala Enterprise as having finally determined the question of whether the articles imported by the petitioner were liable to be classified under CTH 7114 1910 or 7118 9000. According to Mr. Gulati, learned senior counsel appearing in support of the petition, the second respondent incorrectly proceeds on the assumption that this Court had conclusively held that the articles imported by the petitioner were liable to be classified under CTH 7118 9000. It was in the aforesaid backdrop that Mr. Gulati had submitted that since it was ex facie evident that the impugned orders had completely misconstrued the judgment r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd falling under the Chapter, Heading, Sub-heading or tariff item of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) as specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table, when imported into India from the Republic of Korea, from so much of the duty of customs leviable thereon as is in excess of the amount calculated at the rate specified in the corresponding entry in column (4) of the aforesaid Table: Provided that the importer proves to the satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, that the goods in respect of which the benefit of this exemption is claimed are of the origin of Republic of Korea, in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Tariff (Determination of Origin of Goods under the Preferential Trade Agreement between the Governments of the Republic of India and the Republic of Korea) Rules, 2009, published in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 187/2009-Customs (N.T.), dated the 31st December, 2009. 2. This notification shall come into force with effect from 1st January, 2010. Table S.No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....old coins and medallions was proposed to be regulated. 9. In August 2017, the petitioner filed 27 Bills of Entry for clearance of goods declared as gold coins (other than legal tender) of different purity (99.5% and above) stated to have been imported from South Korea. The goods were classified by the petitioners as falling under CTH 7114 1910 and on the basis thereof, it claimed benefit of Nil rate of BCD in accordance with Serial No. 526 of the Customs Notification dated 31 December 2009 (as amended) and noticed hereinabove. 10. On 25 August 2017, the Department of Commerce issued a Notification No. 25/2015-2020 restricting the import of goods falling under CTH 7113, 7114, 7115 and 7118 from South Korea. The relevant parts of that Notification are reproduced hereinbelow. "S.O.(E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(2) of the FT(D&R)Act, 1992 as amended from time to time, read with paragraph l.02 and 2.01 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-2020, the Central Government hereby inserts Policy Condition No. 4 under Chapter 71 of the ITC(HS) 2017, Schedule- I (Import Policy) to read as under:- "Imports from South Korea of articles of jewellery and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mplify the point, since Korea is not a gold producing Country, the point to be checked is whether the exported gold articles from Korea are complying with the 'origin criteria' of Product Specific Rules of Origin under India-Korea CEPA. It may so happen that gold coins are being imported into Korea only for export purpose without any conversion facility. This is the right time for India to undertake a physical verification exercise (of manufacturing facility/premises) in coordination with our counterpart in Korea. 4. Further, as it has been observed that consignments of gold coins are being imported under HS: 7114 from South Korea, whereas the gold coins are classified under HS: 71189000 subject to RBI guidelines. This aspect may also be examined while dealing with these consignments. In case, you find any mis-declaration, you may take appropriate action against the importer under the Customs Act. This issues with the approval of DGFT. Sd/- (S.K. Mahapatra) Dy. DGFT Tel: 23061562 Ext: 277 E-mail: [email protected] The Commissioner of (Customs) Air Cargo Complex [Import] New Customs House, New Delhi-110037." 12....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Memorandum dated 06 September 2017 emanating from the office of the DGFT, the respondents appear to have taken notice of the restrictions imposed on the import of gold coins. However, and significantly, the Commissioner of Customs (Imports) vide its letter dated 14 September 2017 addressed to the Central Board of Excise and Customs [CBEC] took the position that gold coins (other than legal tender), that is an article of gold struck in the form of a coin, would be covered under CTH 7114 and not CTH 7118. While arriving at that conclusion, the authority rested its view on CTH 7118 as framed along with the Harmonized System Nomenclature [HSN] explanatory notes accompanying the said entry. It ultimately came to conclude that such gold coins were free of all restrictions at least till 24 August 2017. The aforesaid communication is extracted hereinbelow: - "OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS) NEW CUSTOM HOUSE, NEAR IGI AIRPORT, NEW DELHI -110037 C. No. VIII/12/Import/Gr.-III, VIAVI/KCPL/39/2016/ &n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... iv of the said Master Circular, "The import of gods coins and medallions is permitted." 5. In view of the above, this office is of the view that gold coins other than legal tender are covered under CTH 7114, that is an article of gold struck in the form coin and there was no bar till 24.08.2017 on import of such gold coins. However, the matter is being brought to your kind for necessary clarification." 14. On 16 February 2018 the CBEC issued an Office Memorandum stating that the classification of Gold Coins ought to be under CTH 7118 9000. The relevant portion of the Office Memorandum reads as: "F.No: 20000/5/2015-OSD(ICD) Govt. of India Ministry of Finance Dept of Revenue Central Board of Excise & Customs Room No. 227 A North Block, New Delhi Dated 16th Feb. 2018 Office Memorandum Subject: Classification of Gold Coins Kindly refer to the letter no. VIII/12/ACCI/Gr-Ill, IV, VI dated 6th December 2017 from Commissioner of Customs (Import) regarding the above subject. 2. In the Customs Tariff heading 7118 reads as follows: 7118 Coin 71181000 - Coin (other than gold coin), not being legal tender 10% 71189....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... gold granules were neither imported on a consignment basis nor on a credit basis. The importer/appellant paid an advance payment through bank Letter of Credit/Swift. I find that the RBI directions, at the most, are restrictions made at regulating import and export of goods in terms of restrictions on current account transactions in foreign exchange but not prohibiting import and export of goods as such. Prohibitions are actionable in terms of Section 111 (b) of the Customs Act and restrictions are actionable in terms of Section 11 (2) of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Riddi Siddhi Bullions Ltd. v. Commissioner [2016 (333) E.L.T. A174 (Bom.)]. Accordingly, in my considered view, gold granules are not prohibited goods within the meaning of Section 2(32) of Customs Act, 1962. 12. Further, the Customs Act, 1962 does not authorise C.B.E. & C. to impose prohibitions by way of circulars, since as submitted supra, circular is not law. Therefore, the contention of the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellants are prohibited from importing gold granules, in terms of Circular No. 34/2013-Cu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e only allegations of the Department is that the appellant has imported the Gold Medallion of Purity 999.9 falling under CTH 71141910 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the same is not permitted because the appellant is not a Nominated Bank or Nominated Agency or a Holder of a Status of a Star/Premier Trading House. As per the RBI regulations, it is only the Nominated Bank and Nominated Agency as notified by DGFT which is permitted to import the said goods. Further, I find that it is not in dispute that the Gold Medallion of Purity 999.9 fall under CTH 71141910 of CETA 1975 and as per the Import Policy, the "Articles of Gold" are classifiable under CTH 71141910 and are freely importable and there is no restriction and in view of the decisions cited supra, Gold Medallion fall within the definition of "Articles of Gold". Further, I find that the appellants have imported the Gold Medallion which is classified as "Articles of Gold" from Korea and vide Notification No. 152/2009 dated 31.12.2009 the BCD leviable on the import of "Articles of Gold" from Korea falling under Chapter 71141910 is Nil. Further, I find that CBEC Circular No. 27/2016-Cus. Dated 10.06.2016 relied upon by both the au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... All Principal Commissioners/Commissioners of Customs/ Customs (Preventive) Subject:- Import of Gold Granules by entities other than nominated agency/bank/ star house etc. reg. Sir/ Madam, Attention is invited to two CESTAT Judgments Sri Exports versus Commissioner of Customs. Hyderabad (Final Order No. A/31/194/2018, dated 22.11.2018 in Appeal No. C/30812/2018) and Sri Exports Versus C.C. Bangalore- Cus [arising out of No. 344/2018 dated 12.10.2018 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore-I) respectively. In the said orders passed by the Hyderabad and Bangalore benches of CESTAT, import of Gold granules has been allowed to be imported by an importer not being a nominated agency/bank/star house etc. The said CESTAT orders have been examined in the Board. It is observed that the said orders are not legal and proper. Therefore, the Board has taken a decision that the said orders should be appealed against. Customs authorities at Hyderabad and Bangalore have been requested to take necessary action. It is therefore, requested that any similar consignments pending clearance at the ports/airports may be dealt in terms of the FTP 2015-2020 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... FTP provisions and the clarification from DGFT dated 21.6.19 cited above besides provisions of the Customs Act with regard to pending or future imports of gold consignments. Yours Sincerely Sd/- 9.9.2019 (Zuber Riaz) Director (Customs)" 20. Having broadly noticed the salient facts relevant to the issues that arise for our consideration, we find from the submissions which were addressed by Mr. Gulati and Mr. Gurnani that the dispute essentially revolves around the import of the judgment which was rendered inter partes in Khandwala Enterprise. The writ petition which had been preferred earlier had assailed the validity of the Show Cause Notices [SCN] as well as the Office Memorandum and Circulars issued by the CBEC/CBIC, and the DGFT noticed hereinbefore. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to take note of the contours of the challenge in the first writ petition and which would be evident from the following recital appearing in the judgment rendered by the Division Bench :- "2. The writ petition seeks quashing of (i) Office Memorandum, dated 16th February, 2018, issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC), (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....L.T. 18 (S.C.)." 22. Proceeding then to firstly deal with the validity of the CBIC Circular dated 31 May 2019 and which had described the orders passed by the CESTAT Bangalore Bench in Sri Exports as "not legal and proper", the Court held that the same was clearly objectionable and observed as under:- "28. On going through the impugned Circular, dated 31st May, 2019, we find ourselves in agreement with Mr. Gulati. The concluding paragraph of the impugned Circular, dated 31st May, 2019, issued by the CBIC is, even on a first reading, plainly objectionable. It discloses a woeful lack of appreciation, by the author of the said Circular, of the most rudimentary principles of law and precedent. Decisions of the Tribunal are, in the absence of any rulings to the contrary, by authorities higher in the judicial echelons, binding on all field formations, as well as adjudicating authorities. Any act or decision, by an officer, lower in judicial hierarchy to the Tribunal - which would include all officers of the Department of Revenue and, in any case, every Customs or Central Excise Officer in the Government - which is contrary to the law laid down by the Tribunal, is not only ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suspended by a competent Court. If this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undue harassment to assessees and chaos in administration of tax laws. 7. The impression or anxiety of the Assistant Collector that, if he accepted the assessee's contention, the department would lose revenue and would also have no remedy to have the matter rectified is also incorrect. Section 35E confers adequate powers on the department in this regard. Under subsection (1), where the Central Board of Excise and Customs Direct Taxes comes across any order passed by the Collector of Central Excise with the legality or propriety of which it is not satisfied, it can direct the Collector to apply to the Appellate Tribunal for the determination of such points arising out of the decision or order as may be specified by the Board in its order. Under sub-section (2) the Collector of Central Excise, when he comes across any order passed by an authority subordinate to him, if not satisfied with its legality or propriety, may direct such authority to apply to the Collector (Appeals) for the determination of such po....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Circular dated 31st March, 2019, direct field formations to deal with consignments pending clearance at airports in accordance with the view of the CBIC, rather than the orders of the Tribunal in Sri Exports versus Commissioner of Customs. Hyderabad (Final Order No. A/31/194/2018, dated 22.11.2018 in Appeal No. C/30812/2018) and Sri Exports Versus C.C. Bangalore-Cus [arising out of No. 344/2018 dated 12.10.2018 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore-I), merely because the CBIC felt that the said orders were not "legal and proper". This direction flies in the face of two of the most fundamental principles governing adjudication, viz., firstly, that it is not open to any executive, or administrative, authority to control, in any manner, the adjudicatory process, and, secondly, that no adjudicating authority can be directed to act in conscious violation of the law. These principles are, indeed, so elementary, that we are astonished at the directions contained in the impugned circular dated 31st May, 2019. The authority issuing the said circular ought to have been aware of the fact that "dealing with" consignments pending clearance at ports and airports involves a process of adju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....value. We prefer to rest our observations at that." 24. The Court, however, refused to interfere with the SCN proceedings holding that interdiction of adjudicatory proceedings would clearly not be justified since the principal authority must be accorded the liberty to undertake adjudication and that the petitioners would, in any case, have the right to take recourse to appropriate remedies if they be aggrieved by any order passed in the course of disposal of the said SCNs. 25. However, since the issue of classification also appears to have been clearly raised and urged on behalf of respective parties, it went on to observe as under:- "49. Para 4 of the aforesaid Office Memorandum, dated 6th September, 2017, issued by the DGFT, merely states that gold coins are classifiable under Heading 7118 9000 of the ITC(HS), whereas consignments of gold coins were being imported by wrongly classifying them under Heading 7114. Headings 7114 and 7118 of the ITC(HS) are completely aligned with the corresponding entries in the Tariff. A comparison of Sub-Headings 7114 and 7118 of the Tariff [or of the ITC(HS)] clearly reveals that, whereas Sub-Heading 7114 1910 of the Tariff [or of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the impugned Office Memorandum dated 6th September, 2017, issued by the DGFT, or the impugned Office Memorandum dated 16th February, 2018, issued by the CBEC." 26. It becomes relevant to pause here and note that it is some of the observations as appearing in the passages extracted above which have been primarily read and understood by the respondents as being an authoritative and conclusive finding with respect to the imported articles being classifiable under CTH 7118 9000. 27. The Court then proceeded to render adverse comments with respect to the Office Memorandum dated 16 February 2018 issued by the CBIC which had alluded to the communications issued by the RBI relating to the import of gold coins and gold in primary forms only through nominated agencies as being relevant for the purposes of classification of gold coins covered under the Indo-Korean CEPA. The Division Bench found that the aforesaid Office Memorandum clearly appeared to shackle the adjudicatory exercise which authorities under the Act were obliged to undertake and consequently observed that all such adjudications would have to be undertaken without being influenced by the aforesaid Office Memorandum. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he CBEC practically adjudicates, by executive fiat, Show Cause Notices, such as those issued to the petitioners in these writ petitions. This is completely impermissible. Being, as it is, in the nature of executive trespass on the quasi-judicial terrain, the Office Memorandum dated 16th February, 2018, must necessarily perish." 28. The Court ultimately disposed of the writ petition in the following terms:- "59. Resultantly, these writ petitions are disposed of, in the following terms: (i) Circular No 450/67/2019-Cus. IV, dated 31st May, 2019, stands modified by Circular No 450/67/2019-Cus.IV, dated 9th September, 2019, issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. While no orders are, therefore, required to be passed in respect of Circular dated 31st May, 2019, Circular dated 9th September, 2019, is quashed and set aside, to the extent of the directions contained therein, especially in para 4 thereof. The effect of the said Circular shall be read as limited to conveying of information, regarding the fact that Final Order No.A/31494/2018, dated 27th November, 2018, of the Hyderabad bench of the Tribunal, in Appeal No. C/30812/2018, and the Final Ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, for setting aside the Show Cause Notices enumerated hereinabove, are rejected. This Court clarifies that, subject to the observations made hereinabove, it has expressed no opinion on the merits of the said Show Cause Notices, or on the allegations made therein. Needless to say, however, the adjudication of the Show Cause Notices shall abide by the findings and observations recorded herein above" 29. As would be evident from the operative directions as framed by the Court, the respondents had been called upon to dispose of the SCN proceedings uninfluenced by the Office Memorandum dated 16 February 2018. It was further and significantly observed that the Court had not intended to express any opinion on the merits of the proceedings as initiated or on the allegations made therein. It was additionally observed that the SCN proceedings would abide by the "findings" and "observations" forming part of the said decision. 30. The Principal Commissioner, while finalizing the aforenoted SCNs, has on a consideration of the various pleas raised by the petitioner and while dealing with the issue of classification, firstly held as under:- "45. I find that classification under th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 covers coin of any metal. In the impugned case, goods are declared as coin, made of gold of 99.5% purity, not being legal tender. The goods being coin are squarely covered under CTH 7118 as the terms of the CTH 7118 under the CTA is COIN while the entry in CTH 7114 is in the nature of residuary items. Hence by application of the GIR 1, impugned goods merit classification under CTH 7118, provided it is not guided otherwise by Section Note for Section XIV and Chapter Note for Chapter 71 of the CTA which are relevant in this case. I do not find anything in the said Section Notes and Chapter Notes that excludes GOLD COIN from the CTH 7118. I also do not find any heading or sub-heading in Chapter 71 of the CTA or for that matter in any Chapter which has specific entry for "Coin" or "Gold Coin". Therefore, I find that the classification of impugned goods remains under CTH 7118. This view also finds support from GIR 3(a), as discussed hereinafter, which provides that "the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description." 31. Proceeding to evaluate the issue of the relevant CTH under which gold coins, not being l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her with technical descriptions of the goods concerned (their appearance, properties, method of production and uses) and practical guidance for their identification." 33. On a due consideration of the explanatory note appended to CTH 7118 9000, the Principal Commissioner ultimately came to the following conclusion:- "53. I find that Explanatory Notes explain that heading 7118: - (i) covers coins of any metals (including precious metals) of officially prescribed weight and design, issued under government control for use as legal tender; (ii) covers coins which are legal tender in the country of issue even if they are put up for general sale in presentation cases; (iii) covers coins which are no longer legal tender: (iv) covers coins which are made by stamping out blanks from sheet metal; which are then "struck'' with the appropriate dies to produce simultaneously that designs on the two faces; (v) does not cover coins which are collectors' pieces; (vi) does not cover medals which are struck in the same way as coins; (vii) does not cover coins mounted in brooches, tie, pins or other objects of pers....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pecifically mentions that medals and medallions are covered by this heading. (iv) Heading 7118 would appear to cover coins. But HSN notes explains that this heading applies to coins of any metals (including precious metals) of officially prescribed weight and design, issued under government control for use as legal tender. However, the note is to the effect that coins being legal tender of any metal will be covered by this heading falling under Chapter 71 for Precious Metals. The note does not say that gold coins which are not legal tender will not fall under this heading .... " 55. I fail to understand that how MINK has arrived to the conclusion that meaning of the phrase "not being legal tender" is "no longer being legal tender"'. This is a very self-serving interpretation of the said phrase. The phrase "not being legal tender" having very simple grammatical meaning has not been explained in the Explanatory Notes. Since it has not been explained further in the Explanatory Notes or the CTA, it would be wrong to conclude that such coins (coins not being legal tender) are not covered under the scope and ambit of heading 7118. The phrase "being legal tender" has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egal tender'". All gold coins are, therefore, classifiable under sub-heading 7118 90 00, of the Tariff, as well as of the ITC (HS). It is well settled that where an item is covered by an entry specific thereto, it has to be classified under the said entry and resort to all other entries would, ex facie, stand proscribed. 50. Gold coins being specifically classified under subheading 7118 90 00 of the Tariff as well as of the ITC (HS), there can be no question of classifying gold coins under sub-heading 7114 19 10. Accordingly, the view of the department stands fortified from the above position of law which leaves no scope for any deliberation with regard to classification of all gold coins irrespective of their being legal tenders or otherwise, the main argument put forth by MINK that the goods imported by them were not gold coins as the same are not legal tenders of any country stands nullified. The undisputed fact which they cannot deny is that the goods imported by them are made up of gold and are round in shape and that i.e. why they themselves have acceded to the fact that the same can loosely be referred to as the gold coins and therefore declared the sam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ur decision cannot be justifiably interpreted as purporting to hold that all articles that may be ordinarily or loosely referred to as gold coins are liable to be classified as falling under CTH 7118 9000. To put it differently, when the Division Bench in Khandwala Enterprise observed that gold coins are liable to be classified under CTH 7118 9000, it did not mean or intend to hold that all articles of gold are liable to be classified as falling in that entry of the CTH merely because they happen to be in the shape of a coin or are colloquially referred to as such. We are also of the opinion that every round, circular or discoid article of gold, for reasons that we propose to record hereafter, would neither fall within the ambit of that entry nor can Khandwala Enterprise be recognised as having propounded such a principle. 39. To put things in perspective, the aforesaid aspect may be considered in light of the competing entries and the explanatory notes which stand appended thereto:- CTH 7114 Tariff item Description of goods Unit Rate of duty 7114 ARTICLES OF GOLDSMITHS' OR SILVERSMITHS' WARES AND PARTS THEREOF OF PRECIOUS METAL OR OF METAL CLAD WITH PRECIOU....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....domestic or similar use, for example, busts, statuettes, and other figures for interior decoration; jewel cases; table centre-pieces, vases, jardinières; picture frames; lamps, candelabra, candlesticks, chandeliers; mantelpiece ornaments; decorative dishes and plates medals and medallions (other than those for personal adornment); sporting trophies; perfume burners, etc. (F) Articles for religious use such as reliquaries, chalices, ciboriums, monstrances, crucifixes, candlesticks, lamps. The heading also covers unfinished or incomplete articles or goldsmiths' or silversmiths' wares and identifiable parts of goldsmiths' or silversmiths' wares, for example, silver handles for tableware, silver backs for toilet brushes, etc. Like jewellery and subject to the same reservation as regards minor constituents, the goods of this heading must contain precious metal or metal clad with precious metal; they may also contain pearls (natural, cultured or imitation) precious or semiprecious stones (natural, synthetic or reconstructed), imitation stones, tortoise-shell, mother of pearl, ivory, amber (natural or agglomerated), jet or coral. The heading excl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... withdrawn from circulation. (2) Coins struck in one country to be put into circulation in another country; at the time of crossing the frontier, they are not issued as legal tender by the competent authority." 40. CTH 7114 deals with articles of goldsmiths, silversmiths, wares and parts thereof. The aforesaid entry, namely, CTH 7114 1910 specifically speaks of articles of gold. It also brings within its ambit articles of silver and other precious metals. Both CTH 7118 1000 and CTH 7118 9000, on the other hand, are placed under the generic heading of "Coins". While CTH 7118 1000 deals with coins [excluding those made of gold] and not being legal tender, CTH 7118 9000 is the residuary entry and encompasses all other coins. CTH 7118 9000 being the remanent receptacle would thus include within its ambit, even gold coins. Accordingly, while 7118 1000 relates to coins (not made of gold) which have ceased to be legal tender, CTH 7118 9000 would extend to all coins whether they be of gold or any other precious material. 41. The expression 'coin', however, as appearing, must necessarily draw colour and meaning from the explanatory notes which stand placed therein. The explan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied to fall under CTH 7118 9000, there would be no question of them being placed under CTH 7114 1000. We find that the aforesaid observation has clearly been read out of context and ignoring the significance and import which Khandwala Enterprise had itself placed on explanatory notes that stand appended to the different entries in the Customs Tariff. In fact, the Court had on that occasion accepted explanatory notes to the HSN as having a binding effect on the interpretation liable to be accorded. 46. When we held that "gold coins" cannot fall within CTH 7114 1910 having already been specifically placed in CTH 7118 9000 we did so bearing in mind the meaning to be ascribed to the expression "coins" as per the explanatory notes. We thus find ourselves unable to subscribe to the interpretation advocated by the respondents that the Court had conclusively held that all gold coins and which would mean all articles which are commonly or loosely referred to as such would fall under CTH 7118 1000 or 7118 9000. The sin qua non for an article to fall within either of those two entries would have to be it being a coin as defined in the explanatory notes. 47. Accordingly and for all the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l settled legal position in this regard. While the purpose and import of explanatory notes is no longer res integra, we deem it apposite to extract the following passages from the decision of the Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise, Shillong vs. Wood Craft Products Ltd. (1995) 3 SCC 454:- "18. We are of the view that the Tribunal as well as the High Court fell into the error of overlooking the fact that the structure of the Central excise tariff is based on the internationally accepted nomenclature found in the HSN and, therefore, any dispute relating to tariff classification must, as far as possible, be resolved with reference to the nomenclature indicated by the HSN unless there be an express different intention indicated by the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 itself. The definition of a term in the ISI Glossary, which has a different purpose, cannot, in case of a conflict, override the clear indication of the meaning of an identical expression in the same context in the HSN. In the HSN, block board is included within the meaning of the expression "similar laminated wood" in the same context of classification of block board. Since the Central Excise Tariff Act, ....