1. The captioned appeal was initially filed asa Revision Application before the Central Government which, in terms of Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962, has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if it were an appeal presented before it.
2. In response to the notice of hearing, the appellants sent a letter dated26th May, 1984 stating that they would not been deputing their representativefor the hearing and requesting the Tribunal to decide the case on its merits.On 11th June, 1984, when the case was called out, Shri Rakesh Bhatia, SDR,sought sometime to study the papers. We agreed and adjourned the hearing to 12th June, 1984. On 12th June, 1984, the Department has remained un-represented in not only this case but all the cases heard that day. There is no request from the Department for adjournment either. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the case on the basis of the material and submissions on record.
3. The appellants imported at Bombay in 1979 a consignment of spares for Cat. D9 Tractor and 966 Wheel-loader. The Customs authorities assessed the goods to duty under Heading No. 39.07 of the Customs Tariff Schedule.After clearance of the goods on payment of the duty assessed, the appellants claimed that the correct assessment was under Heading No. 87.04/06 (2) and that the differential amount of duty was refundable to them. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector.
The matter was pursued in appeal butwithout success.
4. In the Revision Applicatian (the appeal before us), it is stated that the imported packings, rings, seals are identifiable and catalogued parts ofCaterpiller-966 Wheel-loader and merit classification under Heading No.87.04/06(2) or at least as "machinery parts, not elsewhere specified", under Heading No. 84.65.
5. The claim before the lower authorities was that the subject packings,though made of plastic materials are identifiable parts of Wheel-loader model966. Parts of aircraft or vehicle falling within Section XVII are excluded from the purview of Chapter 39 in terms of Chapter Note l(k). The Assistant Collector held that the packings, imported as spares for the Wheel-loader were correctly assessed to duty according to the material of which they were manufactured. In this connection, he referred to Section Note 2 (b) to Section XVII.In his order, the Appellate Collector relied upon the Note in Section XVII(Supra) and stated that even though the goods were identifiable parts of vehicle,they were excluded from the purview of Section XVII.The correct assessment was according to the material of which goods were made. He further observed that the packings, rings and seals can be covered by the expression "Joints,Gaskets, Washers and the like", since their function was similar.
6. The appellants are claiming classification under Section XVII in Heading No. 87.04/06 (2). Now, Section Note 2 to Section XVII reads as follows :- 'Throughout this Section, "parts" and "parts and accessories" are tobe taken not to apply to the following articles, whether or not they are identifiable as for the goods of this Section: (a) joints, washers and the like (classified according to their constituent material or in Heading No. 84.64) ; (b) parts of general use, as defined in Note 2 to Section XV, of base metal (Section XV); or similar goods of artificial plastic materials (which are generally classified in Heading No. 39.07) ; The present goods are packings, rings and seals which are akin to joints,was hers and the like in so far as their function is concerned.
The appellants have contended that this by itself would not mean that the goods would be classifiable under Heading No. 39.07. They are classifiable also under Heading No. 84.65 under certain conditions.
7. By application of Section Note 2 to Section XVII, the present goods would stand excluded from the purview of that section under which Heading No. 87,04/06(2) falls. The appellants' reliance on Note l(k) to Chapter 39is mis-placed. This note says that Chapter 39 does not cover parts of aircraftor vehicles falling within Section XVII. We have seen that the present goods do not fall within that Section. Since the parts are made of plastic, they are rightly classifiable under Chapter 39 and the correct Heading is 39.07.
8. The appellants have made an alternative claim for classifying the goods under Heading No. 84.65. This heading covers machinery parts not falling within any other heading in Chapter 84. We have already arrived at the finding that the subject goods are rightly classifiable under Chapter 39. Hence Heading 84.65 has no application to the present case.