1987 (12) TMI 120 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported sieves under Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

In the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, the case involved the classification of imported sieves by M/s. Grindewell Norton Ltd. The sieves were initially assessed under Heading No. 84.18(1) of the Customs Tariff Act at 40% ad valorem. However, a notice of demand was issued later, classifying them under Heading No. 96.01/06(1) at 100% ad valorem plus 20% auxiliary duty. The appellants contended that the sieves were spare parts for a testing sieve shaker, thus correctly classified under the original assessment. The Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) upheld the new classification, leading to the present appeal.

The main issue revolved around whether the imported sieves should be classified under Heading 96.01/06(1) as hand sieves or under Heading 84.18(1) as parts of filtering machinery. The Tribunal analyzed the nature of the sieves, their intended use as spares for a testing sieve shaker, and the design and operation of the shaker itself. The Tribunal noted that the sieves were not hand-operated but were specifically designed to be mounted on the sieve shaker, which operated either electrically or mechanically. The Tribunal emphasized that the sieves were not meant for independent manual manipulation but were integral components of the machine.

The Tribunal referred to Chapter 96 of the Customs Tariff Act, which covers items like hand sieves and riddles. They interpreted the entry for hand sieves to exclude sieves designed to be mounted on machines, which are classified as parts of machinery. The Tribunal highlighted that the manufacturer's catalogue clearly indicated the sieves were meant to be fitted to the sieve shaker and not for manual sieving operations. The Collector (Appeals) was criticized for misinterpreting the catalogue and failing to prove that the sieves were for manual manipulation.

The Tribunal rejected the argument that the sieves could be accessories rather than parts of the machine, emphasizing their specific design for the sieve shaker. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the classification under Heading 96.01/06(1) and restored the original classification under Heading 84.18(1) as parts of filtering machinery. The Department did not contest this classification, leading to the appeal being allowed in favor of the appellants.