ORDER
Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T)
1. This appeal is directed against the order dt. 16.9.1988 of Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.
2. The appellants imported what they claimed to be a complete CLU Process Plant for Steam Blasting for the production of stainless steels and other alloy steels. This Process Plant is based on the use of steam as the refining agent in order to achieve exceptionally low carbon levels. The Assistant Collector has held that what was presented for assessment was not a complete machine as such, but parts comprising Mas Mixing Station, Control Pulpit with instrumentation and Central Control Unit, necessary connections between the Mas Mixing Station and spare parts. Separate values for these parts were indicated in the invoice. The entire machine claimed to be a system, therefore, was not valued as such. Invoice only indicated separate values for the parts. These were therefore, held to be parts assessable to duty under Chapter heading appropriate to them. Their request for refund therefore, was rejected and original assessment upheld. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the order. Hence this appeal.
3. Arguing for the appellants, the Learned Advocate submits that what they imported was a complete system as such which had to be disassembled for the purpose of importation as the entire machine could not be imported as such. In fact, all these parts were assembled in their factory to make a complete system. In this view of the matter, going by the Rules of Interpretation and Section notes machine has to be assessed as one unit only and not to be assessed as parts which comprise it.
4. The Learned DR submits that while this approach could be adopted for classification, this cannot be pressed into service for benefit of exemption Notification No. 59/87-Cus. He cites the case of Sipani Automobiles Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, as reported in 1996 (16) RLT 646 : 1995 (56) ECR 614 (T). He also submits that in addition the records indicate that accessories and spare parts have also been brought along with machine which in any case have to be assessed only under the heading appropriate to them. Referring to flow matters, lie submits that these goods have been specifically held by the Apex Court to be assessable under Chapter 90 in the case of Moorco (India) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, as .
5. We have heard both sides.
6. The main ground on which the authorities below have held against the appellants is that the goods are supplied as parts with separate values. It was contended before us that the customs authorities had asked them to show separate value, though they had placed orders for a complete system. The agreement with the supplier was for the system and the import licence was for the system and the price itself was quoted for the entire system. We find that the authorities below have not examined the basic question in the first face as to whether the goods as such as have been imported would when assembled would form a complete system as claimed. If they form a complete system as claimed for the purpose of classification they would have to be considered only under the customs tariff heading appropriate to the whole machine. There is no discussion to that effect. It was held in the case of Collector of Customs, v. Bharat Electricals Ltd. as reported that if a machine had to be disassembled into different parts to facilitate its transport for importation it has to be classified under the heading appropriate to the whole machine. The authorities below have not discussed this basic question before applying the separate tariff headings to the parts. However, we must make it clear that, as pleaded by the Learned DR even though will the help of Section notes and Rules of Interpretation such parts put together could be assessed as machine for the purpose of classification, it would not follow that benefit of Notification would be available to them. Admittedly what has been presented for the assessment are separate parts which would form the machine only when they are assembled. (See Sipani Automobiles Ltd. v. Collector of Customs 1996 : (16) RLT646 : 1995 (56) ECR 614 (T). We therefore, at this stage leave this question open and remand it to original adjudicating authority for a de novo decision through a speaking order to arrive at the classification of the impugned goods. The appellants shall be heard in person and shall be at liberty to produce such additional evidence as they consider would support their case.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the Open Court.)