ORDER
V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)
1. M/s. National Tyre Retreading Company is aggrieved of the impugned order dated 2-5-1997 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the adjudication order in which the tyres imported by them were confiscated under Customs Act for importing without import licence, ordered to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 1,25,000/-and classified the tyres under sub-heading 4011.50 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act for the purpose of levying additional customs duty.
2. Shri M.C. Sharma, ld. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Appellants mentioned at the outset that the issue regarding import licence is not being contested and he is praying only for a lenient view regarding the quantum of the redemption fine. He submitted that the imported goods were actually tyre casings where the tread had been eroded beyond the legal safety limits and as such were components for retreaded tyres; that worn out tyres with the remaining pattern/grooves less than 2 mm. indepth were known in the trade as casings for retreading purposes. According to Random House Dictionary, casing is defined as “the outermost covering of an automobile tyre.” He mentioned that this means that a tyre casing is a worn out pneumatic tyre i.e. left out after use which is fit for retreading purposes; that type casings meant for retreading could not be classified under sub-heading 4011.50 of CETA and were rightly classifiable under sub-heading 4011.99 of CETA. The ld. Advocate also referred to paragraph 16 (at page 35) of the Misc. Order No. 85/98-C in the case of Asian Rubber Works v. Commissioner of Customs in which the ld. Vice-President of the Appellate Tribunal opined that the old uncut rubber tyre cannot be classified under sub-heading 4011.40 or 4011.50 because the goods which are worn out and not capable of being used on saloon cars, buses, trucks etc.; that the classification 4011.90/99 appear to be relevant.
3. Countering the arguments, Shri Satnam Singh, ld. SDR, submitted that the importer had himself described as “used scrap bus rubber tyre” and the accompanying invoice also described the items similarly. If the impugned product was casings, the appellants would have described the product as casing in Bill of Entry. The ld. SDR also mentioned that the Commissioner (Appeals) had observed in the impugned order that the Central Excise Tariff makes no distinction between used tyres or new tyres and, therefore, would be appropriately classifiable under sub-heading 4011.50.
4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. It is evident from the Bill of Entry that the product imported by the appellants were ‘used scrap tyre cases – used scrap bus rubber tyres without tread.’ The same description has been mentioned in the invoice issued by M/s. Sevenest Suppliers Co. Ltd., Japan. It is also observed that it was clearly mentioned in the invoice that the invoice was for “used tyres”. Thus what was imported by the appellants were the used tyres and not the tyre casings. We also observe that the Deputy Commissioner, in his adjudication order, has observed that none of the documents/pamphlets or literature submitted by the appellants substantiated their claim that a used tyre was nothing but a tyre casing; that the documents submitted only indicated that for retreading of tyres, at an intermediate stage a tyre casing was formed on which the tread was fixed/attached; and that it was obvious that for attaching the tread, used tyre had to be cleared and buffed so as to get an uniform surface. These findings in the adjudication order have not been controverted by the appellants. Further, it is obvious from the pamphlet of Apollo Tyres Ltd., submitted by the appellants, that “driving on worn out tyres can be dangerous and can lead to serious accidents. Tyres carry tread-wear indicators to help you decide when they should be replaced, retreaded or discarded. Remove tyres for replacement or retreading, preferably when the remaining pattern (skid) depth in any part of the tyre tread reaches 08 mm. for Scooter and Motor Cycle tyres (and) 16 mm. for passing a Car, LCV and Truck/Bus Tyres.” It is, thus, apparent that the tyre after use when the tyre tread reaches a particular level are retreaded for reuse and the appellants have imported the used tyres. As the used tyres imported by the appellants were bus tyres, these are classifiable under sub-heading 4011.50 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as the sub-heading at the relevant time was applicable to Pneumatic tyres, of rubber “of a kind used on other motor vehicle (for example buses, lorries and station wagons).” In view of these facts and circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and reject the appeal.