1990 (10) TMI 196 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of Off-set Litho Paper Plates under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
2. Interpretation of competing headings 48.01/21 and 84.34.
3. Consideration of explanatory notes in the Customs Co-operation Council Nomenclature (C.C.C.N.).
4. The relevance of the goods' description and use in determining classification.
5. Applicability of previous judicial decisions and principles.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Off-set Litho Paper Plates under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975:
The central issue in these appeals was the classification of two consignments of Off-set Litho Paper Plates imported by the appellants. The lower authorities classified the goods under Heading 48.01/21, rejecting the appellants' claim for Heading 84.34. The Tribunal had to decide which heading was appropriate based on the characteristics and use of the imported goods.

2. Interpretation of Competing Headings 48.01/21 and 84.34:
Heading 48.01/21 covers "Paper and paperboard, all sorts, whether in rolls, sheets or cut to size or shape," including various types of coated paper. Heading 84.34 pertains to "Machinery, apparatus and accessories for type-founding or type-setting; machinery, other than the machine tools of Heading No. 84.45/48, for preparing or working printing blocks, plates or cylinders; printing type, impressed flongs and matrices, printing blocks, plates and cylinders; blocks, plates, cylinders and lithographic stones, prepared for printing purposes." The Tribunal noted that the goods were described as paper base coated with special chemicals, which attracted ink in image areas and repelled ink in non-image areas, thus functioning as printing plates.

3. Consideration of Explanatory Notes in the C.C.C.N.:
The Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) relied on the C.C.C.N. explanatory notes, which classified master paper plates under copying papers in Heading 48.13. However, the Tribunal observed that these notes had no legal force, only persuasive value. The Tribunal emphasized that the goods were non-sensitized and used directly for printing, contradicting the Collector's statement that they required further coating with photo-sensitive chemicals.

4. The Relevance of the Goods' Description and Use in Determining Classification:
The Tribunal considered the manufacturer's test report and literature, which described the goods as "Offset Litho Plates - Paper base" and "Direct image offset paper plates." The goods were used for printing on offset machines, not merely as copying paper. The Tribunal found that the subject paper was not a copying paper but a master plate used in offset printing machines.

5. Applicability of Previous Judicial Decisions and Principles:
The Tribunal referenced its previous decision in Kasturi & Sons v. Collector of Customs, Madras, where it classified "Toyobo" Printing Plates under Heading 84.34 despite their photo-sensitive nature. The principle established was that printing plates should be classified based on their use in printing, regardless of their material. The Tribunal also cited the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh & Another v. Kores India Ltd., which emphasized understanding terms in their popular and commercial sense. The Tribunal concluded that the term "printing plates" was more specific and appropriate for the imported goods.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the paper offset printing plates imported by the appellants were classifiable under Heading 84.34 and not under Heading 48.01/21. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.