K.L. Rekhi, Member (T)

1. The dispute in this appeal is on classification of certain ladle equipment, imported by the appellants, for the purpose of levy of customs duty.

2. The appellants submitted before us during the hearing that a ladle consisted of 12 parts out of which they imported 10 parts in unassembled condition. The remaining two parts - the vessel and piping - were procured by them locally. They stated that the value of these two parts procured locally was about 2% of the value of the total ladle equipment. Relying on the affidavit dated 6-6-1984 of Dr. V.D. Sehgal, a Metallurgist, the appellants contended that the equipment imported by them, 'though incomplete to form a complete ladle, had collectively acquired the essential character of a vacuum degassing ladle as that expression was understood in the Metallurgical trade. The appellants prayed that the entire equipment as imported by them should be assessed under Heading 84.43 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

3. We find from the record that out of the equipment imported by the appellants, the Collector (Appeals) had already ordered the classification of "Ladle Refining Equipment" under Heading 84.43. But he ordered