ORDER
V.P. Gulati, Member (T)
1. The captioned appeals are against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Calcutta.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants imported tube valves and the same were assessed to duty under 84.61(1). The appellants claimed refund on the plea that the goods were assessable under Heading 84.61(2) as non-return valves. The learned Collector negatived their plea for the reason that the tube valves were different from the non-return valves inasmuch in the B.T.N. the two were separately mentioned.
3. The learned advocate for the appellants pleaded that the goods were in the nature of non-return valves and were made of corrosion resistant material. He stated that both non-return and corrosion resistant valves were covered under Heading 84.61(2). He conceded that the plea that the valves were corrosion resistant was not taken before the lower authority. On a query from the Bench, he stated that he has no catalogue to show that valves imported were made of corrosion resistant material. He, however, drew out attention to a certificate of M/s. Schrader-Scovill Duncan Limited dated 10-8-1982 in which the suppliers had certified that the valves imported were manufactured out of corrosion resistant alloy, being a copper alloy. The learned advocate also stated that the valve cap was made of rubber and the outer wall of valve was lined by rubber. He stated that the rubber is a corrosion resistant material and as such these valves should be considered corrosion resistant. To elaborate the scope of term non-return valve, he produced an extract in this regard from the Hydraulic Handbook compiled by Editors ‘Hydraulic Pneumatic Power’. The relevant extract in this regard is reproduced below :
“Non-return valves or check valves are used in circuits, or combined in the body of other valves, to provide flow in one direction only. The simplest type is the spring-loaded ball valve, although this has limited suitability for hydraulic-services and rather more sophisticated designs are normally employed. In high pressure services, especially, goods sealing is necessary, when it may be necessary to design the valve within a resilient seating seat. Damping may also be provided to prevent damage to the seal, which could be caused by impact with sudden flow reversal. A further consideration in the design, where high flow rates are involved, is that it must be impossible for the sealing member to travel to a position where it could obstruct the through flow in the valve-open position. Also, of course, in high pressure valves with resilient seals, the seal inserts must be designed to prevent extrusion or displacement of the seal.”
It was pointed out to him that in case of tube valves air under pressure could be injected into tube and also it could be drawn out. In that view of the matter how the valves can be considered as non-return valves. He stated in case of non-return valves, the essential requirement is that the flow of liquid or gas should take place in one direction and there exists an arrangement therein for flow of these in the reverse direction also in case of need.
4. Learned SDR, Shri Gopinath, stated that the goods imported were the tube valves also known as tyre valves. He stated that these valves have not been specified by name in the tariff. Under the Interpretative Rule it, these being akin to valves would appropriately merit asessment under T.I. 84.61 and the issue was whether these would fall under T.I. 84.61(1) as held by Revenue or under Heading 84.61(2) as pleaded by the appellants. He drew our attention to the Notes under Chapter 84.61(1) under CCN. He stated that in CCN, a distinction has been made between non-return valves and tube valves. He pleaded that no evidence has been produced by the appellants to show that the tube valves imported were non-return valves. In regard to the plea that the valves were corrosion resistant he cited from Magraw Hill Encyclopaedia Vol. 1 page 366. He pointed out that copper alloy known as monel alloy containing 60% nickle 40% copper could be considered as corrosion resistant. He stated that no doubt the appellants had produced a certificate to show that valves are made of copper alloys but have not produced any evidence in regard to the composition of the alloy for determination as to whether the material out of which valves are made is corrosion resistant or not. He pointed out that the valves were externally covered by the layer of rubber but these were not rubber lined and therefore could not be considered as corrosion resistant.
5. We observe that the valves imported have a specialised use in the inner tubes of the tyres. These are for filling air in the tube. The appellants have not shown any literature or catalogue of the manufacturers to show that such valves are known in the trade as non-return valves. The suppliers have also not described these so.
6. The learned advocate for the appellants explained that the valves allow passage of the air in the tube under pressure and the flow of this air is undirectional and thus the valves satisfy the essential criterion of the non-return valves. It is a well known fact that from the tube air can also be taken out by the same mechanism as by which it is filled in, i.e., by creating a differential pressure at the mouth of the valve. Free flow of the air can take place both ways. The evidence as to the nature of non-return valves as produced by the appellants does not in any way show that functionally tube valves fall in the same category as described in the literature produced (extract reproduced earlier). The appellant alternate plea is that the valves are corrosion resistant.
7. We observe that the corrosion resistant material used for the valve depends upon the nature of the corrosive fluid which has to flow through the valve. It has not been shown as to which corrosive fluid has to flow through the valve and for which any corrosion resistant property was required in the valves imported. Merely a certificate has been produced that the valve is made of copper alloys and therefore it is corrosion resistant. No composition or material as pointed out by the Revenue, has been given nor it has been shown as to corrosive effect of the fluid it is supposed to withstand. As it is the valves are intended for flow of the air through them and it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the air through the valve has a corrosive property as this air is only what is available in the atmosphere which after compression is filled in the tube. No reason has been given as to why the valve has to be made of corrosive resistant material as pleaded. It has also been pleaded that the valves are rubber lined from outside and to that extent these should be considered at par with the rubber lined valves which are corrosion resistant. No material has been placed before us as to the nature of the rubber lining and as to which material it is corrosion resistant. It is not the appellants case that this rubber lining has been provided by the manufacturers for this purpose and no catalogue or even a certificate in this regard has been produced by the appellants to establish the plea that rubber lining has been provided to support corrosion resistant properties. The corrosion resistant valves are primarily designed for withstanding the corrosion of fluids passing through them and which has not been shown to be the case before us. In view of this, we hold that there is no merit in the appellants plea and the appeal is therefore rejected.