1999 (10) TMI 281

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a consignment of goods declaring them as DECALCOMANIA PAPERS in the Bill of Entry. The Department alleged that Explanatory Notes under Chapter Heading 4908.10 explains "Transfers (decalcomanias) consist of pictures, designs or lettering in single or multiple colours, lithographed or otherwise printed on absorbent......" 3.  Accordingly, the importer was asked to explain as to why the paper imported by them should not be classified under Heading 4908.90 as against their claim of its classification under Heading 4908.10. The second issue that was raised by the Department was that the imported items were not covered by OGL provisions and required a specific licence. 4. The appellants replied that similar product was imported by th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ce the Department had earlier classified those goods as claimed by them, no reason had been shown as to why the same goods have now been proposed and actually classified under Chapter Heading 4809.90. Ld. Counsel agitated the findings an import licence as held by the ld. Collector. He submits that the goods were the same as imported earlier, that the Department had not insisted for any licence and therefore, there was no question of asking for any licence when the third consignment was imported. He submits that if the paper was considered as printing and writing paper then the paper should have been permitted to be imported under OGL. He submits that they had contended before the authorities below that the goods were the same as were permi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... were the same as were imported earlier is not supported by any acceptable evidence. He, therefore, prays that the appeal may be rejected. 8.  We have heard the rival submissions. We have also perused the case law cited and relied upon by the Counsel for the appellant. We find that two issues have come up for decision in this case. The first issue is that of classification and the second issue is that of requirement of the specific licence. On the first issue we find that HSN Notes under chapter sub-heading 4908.10 stipulate that there should be some sorts of printing visible or otherwise in the decalcomania. In the instant case we note that there was no printing on the paper imported visible to the naked eye. Ld. Counsel argued that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X