ORDER
S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President
1. This is an appeal filed against the order of Collector (Appeals), Bombay, dated 23-2-1987.
2. Learned representative of the appellants stated that they had imported Stainless Steel Anchors which are being used as support to the refraction bricks and are fitted on the shell of a pressure vessel. These appear
specifically under Heading 73.30 as Anchors and parts thereof of iron and steel.
3. This entry does not refer to the nature or type of steel. Therefore, anchors of all varieties or articles of steel are to be classified under this heading with benefit of Notification No. 38/84, dated 1-3-1984 as amended by Notification No. 186/84, dated 22-6-1984.
4. The Heading 73.30/40 under which the Department had classified at the original stage and confirmed at the first appellate stage is in respect of other articles of steel which is a general heading whereas 73.30 is a specific one. The Section Note 5 (a) to Section XV indicates that iron and steel of different kinds are regarded as one and the same metal.
5. Further, Rule 3(a) of the Rules for the Interpretation of the Schedule provides that the heading which provides more specific description shall be preferred to heading providing a more general description.
6. Learned DR drew attention to the order-in-original and order-in-appeal and stated that the Anchors covered by Heading 73.30 are of iron and steel and not of stainless steel. The appellants have not disputed that their Anchors are made of Stainless Steel and therefore, the item has been correctly classified under Heading 73.33/40.
7. We have considered the above submissions. We observe that it is a well-known principle of Interpretation of Statutes that the words used therein are required to be construed in the sense in which they are normally understood in common parlance. The word ‘Anchor’ in the common parlance is used for the anchors made of iron and steel used for anchoring ships etc. whereas in the case of the appellants, the article imported by them, although called ‘Anchor’, is technically, an article of specialised use for supporting the refractory bricks and is fitted for this purpose on the shell of the pressure vessel. The invoice produced by them describes the imported items as “refractory raw materials and anchors for refractory lining”. The drawing and design showing the ‘refractory detail for R.G. Boiler’ confirms this position. The fact that they are made of stainless steel is an undisputed fact but, what is really significant for the purpose of determining the classification is the interpretation of the heading and for this purpose, the meaning to be assigned to the words “Anchors and grapnels and parts thereof, of iron or steel” covered by Heading 73.30. In these circumstances, the Chapter Notes cited by the appellants, the Section Note 5 and the Interpretative Rule 3 do not help the cause of the appellants and it is the heading itself which is required to be straightaway interpreted and applied.
8. Insofar as the word ‘Anchor’ is concerned, as mentined above, we are concerned here with the meaning attached to it in the common parlance and not with any specialised meaning or sense in which it is used in various branches of knowledge such as Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering etc. As apparent from a perusal of the McGraw Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, it is used in various fields to denote very different type of things but here, we are not concerned with the same.
9. The fact is that it is commonly used in the same sense as attached by the Navy and it is in this sense only that it is internationally used for customs tariff purposes.
10. The CCCN Explanatory Notes confirm the above viewpoint as evident from the following description therein:
“73.30 – Anchors and Grapnels and Parts thereof, of Iron or Steel. This heading refers only to the types of anchors used for mooring ships of all tonnages, buoys, beacons, floating mines, etc.; it does not include other articles sometimes called “anchors” (e.g., those used for joining masonry on for fixing rafters to the walls of buildings, etc.).”
11. Since in the present case, the article is not an anchor in the normal sense of the word but is a specialised item for refractory lining of a boiler, we could understand if the classification was claimed on the basis of its being an essential part of the boiler for supporting the refractory lining & classifiable under Chapter 84 but we are handicapped in the absence of any technical material before us. In this respect, the appellants’ letter dated May 19, 1987 states that they are enclosing a catalogue but the same is not in our records. Whereas, it would be required to be seen whether the item in question was classifiable under 73.33/40,84.01 /02 or 84.65. But, these aspects have not been taken into consideration at any stage. The appellants are, of course, correct in pointing out that Chapter 73 is not confined to articles of iron only but covers articles of steel as well and the Chapter Note (d) covers stainless steel as well.
12. But, Heading 73.30 is confined to anchors and grapnels and parts thereof of iron and steel and does not cover such articles as made of stainless steel. A reading of Chapter Heading shows that the Chapter distinguishes between steel and stainless steel because wherever the intention was to cover stainless steel also, it has been specifically so mentioned. This is evident from the entries such as 73.16(2), 73.17/19(2), 73.20(2), 73.21(2), 73.22/23(2), 73.25(2), 73.26(2), 73.27/28(2), 73.29(2), 73.33/40(2). Therefore, it is evident that 73.30 does not cover articles of stainless steel. It also does not cover the type of article which has been imported. Hence, the appellants’ contention in this respect is required to be rejected.
13. In the absence of any material or even a claim for treating them as articles falling under Chapter 84, the only course left open is to hold that the original assessment under Heading 73.33/40(2) was correct. The authorities below have erred in treating them as ‘anchors’ for customs purposes but the appellants’ claim for assessment under Heading 73.30 could not be accepted for reasons recorded above. We, therefore, reject the appeal and uphold the Department’s classification under 73.33/40(2).