G. Sankaran, Member (T)

1. The captioned proceedings instituted by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it under Section 131(3) of the Customs Act 1962 (as it stood at the relevant time), have come on transfer to this Tribunal in terms of Section 131 (B) of the said Act, to be disposed of as if they were appeals filed before the Tribunal. All the appeals involve a common dispute and are, therefore, being disposed of by this common order.

2. The dispute is whether Polyethylene Glycol 300-P (PEG, 300--for short) and Polypropylene Glycol (PPG, for short) imported by the appellants fell for classification under heading No. 38.01/19(1) or 39.01/06 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (CTA, 1975--for short). The Appellate Collectors of Customs at Madras and Bombay held, by their impugned orders, that the former was the correct heading as claimed by the appellants whereas the show cause notices issued by the Central Government take the tentative view that the latter is the correct heading.

3. The facts relevant to the Premier Tyres cases are that Premier Tyres imported, prior to 1-9-1978, a number of consignments of PEG 300 (300 stands for the molecular weight of the product). They claimed that the goods were assessable to basic Customs duty under heading No. 38.01/19(1) of the CTA, 1975, with no additional (countervailing) duty of Customs. The Assistant Collector of Customs, however, did not accept this claim. He classified the goods under heading 39.01/06 of the CTA, 1975. In some of the cases, he charged additional duty under item No. 15-A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944 (CET--for short). On appeal, the Appellate Collector, Madras, by his impugned order, set aside the Assistant Collector's order and held that the goods were classifiable under heading 38.01/19(1) of the CTA, 1975 and that no additional duty was leviable since the goods fell outside the purview of item No. 15-A, CET. On examination of the records, the Central Government formed a tentative view that PEG 300 fell more appropriately under heading 39.01/06 and that the Appellate Collector had erred in holding that the correct heading was 38.01/19(1). The basis for this view, as set forth in the show cause notice, was that the goods were polycondensation or polymerisation products similar to resols and liquid polyisobutylene and, in view of Note 2(c) to Chapter. 39, CFA, 1975, they fell within heading 39.01/06. Commercially available PEGs were usually mixtures of many PEGs. According to "Encyclopaedia of Chemical Technology" by Kirk-Othmer, PEG 300 had an average molecular weight to 285 to 351. It further appeared that it was a mixture of PEGs with an average of 6-7 monomer units. PEGs were of very high molecular weight. Resins could be prepared from them just as from resols and polyisobutylene, after further polymerisation. On this basis, the show cause notice dated 10-9-1981 came to be issued calling upon Premier Tyres to show cause why the impugned Orders-in-Appeal should not be set aside and why the Assistant Collector's orders should not be restored. By their reply dated 6-10-1981, Premier Tyres denied all the allegations. They further stated that if Government considered that PEG 300 could not, for any reason, be classified under heading 34.01/19(1)-though that was the correct heading--they should be classified under heading 34.01/07 since the material was used in the tyre industry as a lubricant.

4. The facts in the matters pertaining to Dai-Ichi-Karkaria are more or less similar. The importation took place in their case after 1-9-1978. The goods involved are "Polypropylene Glycol, 1010" (PPG 1010) and Polypropylene Glycol 2020" (PPG 2020). (The numerals 1010 and 2020 stand for the molecular weights of the products). These were assessed to basic Customs duty under heading 39.01/06 CTA, 1975 and to additional duty under item No. 68, CET. The Appellate Collector, Bombay, in these cases, upheld