ORDER
K.S. Venkataramani, Member (T)
1. Customs exemption Notification 190/90, dated 31-5-1990 prescribed the following concessional rate of duty:
Sl. Heading No. or. Description Rate
No. Sub-Heading
No
1. 2. 3. 4.
1. 96.06 All goods 100% ad valorem
2. 96.07 Zip Coils, 100% ad valorem plus
Zip rolls or Rs. 1.50 per metre
Zip tapes
3. 96.07 Zip fastners 100% ad valorem plus
Rs. 1.50 per metre
4. 9607.20 Parts of zip 150% ad valorem
fastners
(other than
zip coils, zip
rolls and zip
tapes)
The appellants, herein, imported in January, 1991, a consignment described in the invoice as components of zip fastners and in the Bill of Entry filed for its clearance as component parts of zip in coil No. 5 amplified as components of zip fastners. The goods were examined and it was found that the goods were of two types (1) coil in running length (chain scoops); and (2) side tape for zip in coil. The Custom House found that the two goods were classifiable under separate headings under Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The side tapes were classifiable under Heading 58.06 and coil in running length under Heading 96.07. In the proceedings which followed before the Assistant Collector of Customs Group (non-project), Bombay Custom House, the appellants agreed that side tapes were narrow fabrics classifiable under Heading 58.06. But in respect of chain scoop they claimed that these were parts of zip fastners and covered by Sl. No. (4) of the Notification 190/90. But the Assistant Collector held that entry at Sl. No. 4 of the Notification is qualified and is applicable only to those parts of zip fastners which are other than zip coils, zip rolls, zip tapes and he held that the item imported is nothing but zip coil by Sl. No. 2 of the Notification and ordered assessment accordingly vide his order dated 10-12-1991. The appeal against the Assistant Collector’s order was rejected as unsubstantiated as per the impugned order dated 9-4-1992 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. Arguments have been put forth by ld. Consultant, Sh. N.C. Sogani for the appellants and Sh. M.K. Jain, ld. SDR, for the Department. The appellants say that the examination report of the goods has been recorded in the Assistant Collector’s order according to which it is clear that the sample is nothing but scoops parts of the zip made of plastic in running length. It has been contended that the conclusion of the Assistant Collector is at variance with the examination report. It was urged that the goods imported were scoops without side tapes and hence could not be considered as zip coil. It was also submitted that as per Explanatory Notes to HSN the parts of slide fastners are chain scoops, sliders or runners and pieces and narrow strips of any length mounted with chain scoop. Sh. Jain, Ld. SDR, referring to the Sl. No. (2) and (4) of the Notification 190/90 pointed out that the goods had been described and declared in Bill of Entry as components of zip in coil and as such clearly fall within the category excluded from the scope of goods described against Sl. No. (4) of the Notification.
2. The submissions made have been carefully considered. The goods imported have been examined, and it has been recorded in the Assistant Collector’s order, “Sample has been presented for inspection of the group and the sample is nothing but only scoops parts of the zip made of plastic in running length.” It is also the admitted position that the side tapes had been separately imported. Now as per HSN Explanatory Notes (which it is well settled have a persuasive value as CTA is largely based thereon) under Heading 96.07 it has been stated, “Most slide fastners consist of two narrow strips of textile material one edge of each strip being fitted with scoops (of metal, plastics, etc.) which can be made to interlock by means of a slider or runner.” And again, “Parts of slide fastners e.g. chain scoops, sliders or runners, and pieces and narrow strips of any length mounted with chain scoops.” From the above, it is evident that chain scoops by themselves which are not stitched on to side tapes cannot be considered as zip coils. Therefore, chain scoops cannot be considered as zip coil and as one of the items excluded from the scope of entry against Sl. No. (4) of the Table to the Notification 190/90, and in this view of the matter, the conclusion of the lower authorities is not sustainable. Accordingly it is held that the chain scoops imported without being attached to side tapes are eligible for exemption against Sl. No. (4) of the Table to Notification 190/90. The appeal is, therefore, allowed on these terms.