D.C. Mandal, Member (T)

1. This is a Revision Application, originally filed before the Central Government, which stood transferred to this Tribunal under Section 131-B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 for disposal as an appeal.

2. The appellants imported a consignment of Jeep parts, transmission Synchronizer Blocking Rings (Semi-finished) under Bill of Entry No. 718-D dated 12.9.1979 through Bombay Custom House. The goods were assessed by the Custom House under Heading 87.04/06(1) of the C.T.A., 1975 at the rate of 100% ad valorem plus auxiliary duty at 20% ad valorem plus additional duty of 8% ad valorem. Appellants filed an application for re-assessment of the goods and consequential refund of excise duty paid, but the Assistant Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Unit, Bombay rejected the claim as unsubstantiated as the appellants did not produce the requisite documents despite sufficient time having been allowed by the Assistant Collector. An appeal was filed before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), but the same was rejected by the impugned order. While rejecting the appeal, the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, observed that "all semi-finished goods are not covered under Heading 84.63 of C.T.A. The goods being parts of gear box meant for jeep have been correctly classified under Heading 87.04/06."

3. In the Revision Application, the appellants have stated that in their original claim the grounds of claim were erroneously described as "Goods imported are Semi-finished and hence are assessable under item 84.63 of C.T.A. @ 60% + 15% + Rs. 1007- per m/ton and not under item 87.04/06(1)." In the Revision Application they have made the following ground of appeal;

"Transmission Synchroniser Blocking Rings (Semi Finished) being Gear Box Parts were assessable under Item 84.63 of C.T.A. @ 60% + 15% Customs Duty + CVD @ Rs. 100 per m/ton being semi-finished items made of Bronze and not under item 87.04/06(1)."

They have also stated that these semi-finished parts, although form parts of Motor Vehicle, would merit assessment under Heading 84.63 as they are mainly "Gear Box Parts" and as such should be charged to duty accordingly.

4. In their letter dated 14.8.86 the appellants submitted written arguments in which, after quoting the Headings 84.63 and 87.04/06 of C.T.A., 1975, they submitted the following arguments in support of their contention that the imported goods were assessable under Heading 84.63:-

(i) According to Rule 2(a) of Rules for Interpretation of the First Schedule of the C.T.A. any reference in a heading to an article shall be taken to include a reference to that article incomplete or unfinished, provided that, as imported, the incomplete or unfinished article has the essential character of the complete or furnished article. It shall also be taken to include a reference to that article complete or finished (or falling to be classified as complete or finished by virtue of this rule), imported unassembled or disassembled.

(ii) It is a settled law that for the purposes of levy of customs duty on imported goods the nature and condition of the goods at the time of their import is relevant and not their condition and nature at a later point. This Tribunal's decision reported in 1985 ECR-1422 has been relied upon for this argument.

(iii) End-use of the goods can not determine their classification in general except where classification is related to the function of the goods in the Tariff Act item. Supreme Court judgment in the case of Dunlop India v. U.O.I. reported in AIR-1977-SC-597=1983 ELT 1566 (SC) has been relied upon for this argument.

(iv) Rule 3(a) of the Rules for Interpretation of the First Schedule to the C.T.A. says that "Heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to Heading of more general description. This Tribunal's decision reported in 1986-ECR-(8)-59 has been cited in this connection.

(v) The decision of the Tribunal in order No. 384/84-B dated 9.5.84 holds that the Tribunal has to arr