1. The Revision Application dated 18-1-1980 against order-in-appeal No.C3/1530/1979 dated 18-7-1979 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras, has been transferred by the Government of India to the Tribunal for disposal in terms of Section 131B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. An Altitude Test Chamber was imported and assessed under heading 85.59(1) of the CTA as machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions, not elsewhere specified. A claim was made for re-assessment under heading 90.28(4) read with 90.16(2) or 90.28(4) read with 90.25 or under any other heading on the strength of a technical write-up from the Production Engineer (Methods). The article is described as a leak proof box suitable for creating vacuum inside the chamber to stimulate different altitude conditions on ground to test the operation of barostatic capsule of barostatic time release unit fitted on Martin Baker Ejection Seat used on Ajeet aircraft manufactured by the importers. The Asstt. Collector observed that the box Is supplied with a vacuum pump and a motor to operate on 230 volts single phase AC supply and does not fall under heading 90.16(2) or 90.25, but is correctly classifiable as a machine with motor designed to perform individual functions not meant for manufacture or production of any commodity. He, therefore, rejected the claim as inadmissible.
The Appellate Collector also held that the goods cannot be classified as testing instruments of the character referred to under heading 90.16(2) or 90.25 and the question of classifying them under 90.28(4) read with those two sub-headings did not arise. He upheld the findings of the lower authority.
3. In the present appeal, it is reiterated that the Altitude Test Chamber is for checking the functions of Barostatic time release unit and Drogue Guns of the Ejection Seat. They contend that the Appellate Collector has accepted that the original assessment of the item as machines and mechanical appliances is not correct and it will be seen from the technical write-up and sketches of the test equipment that it is a checking/testing equipment and correctly re-assessable against item 90.28(4) read with 90.25 or under 90.28(4) read with item 90.16(2) of CTA.4. Shri L. K. Mehara explained that this Equipment was required to test the Ejection Seat mechanism of aircraft which were damaged in combat and used to enable the pilot to bale out. The Customs authorities invariably ignored the fact that the appellants are manufacturers of aircrafts and nothing else. This was test equipment and should be assessed under Chapter 90 as stressed in the appeal.
5. For the Department, Shri Chatterjee, referred to heading 90.16(2) and 90.25 which had no connection whatsoever with the type of testing equipment of which this appeal is the subject. The question of assessing the goods under Heading 90.28(4) read with either of these items does not, therefore, arise.
6. We have carefully considered the matter in the light of the various tariff headings cited by the appellants. It is not correct that the Appellate Collector has differed with the original assessment as machines and mechanical appliances. All that he says is that it is not meant for manufacture or use in connection with manufacture, thereby ruling out sub-item (2) of Heading 85.59 and by implication justifying the assessment under sub-item (1) as machines and mechanical appliances having individual function not elsewhere specified. We agree with the departmental representative that neither of the sub-headings (16) or (25) are relevant considering the nature of the subject goods. The question of applying item 90.28(4), namely, electrical instruments and apparatus, the non-electric counterparts of which fall under Heading 90.14 to 90.16, 90.22 to 90.25 or 90.27 will, therefore, not arise.
Neither the representative of the Appellants nor the Departmental representative was able to enlighten the Tribunal as to which other headings of the customs tariff would cover these goods. Since, heading 85.59(1) describes these goods aptly, we find no reason to differ from the assessment done by the lower authorities. The appeal is therefore rejected.