ORDER
S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President
1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay dated 8-10-1986.
2. The appellants have sent a letter dated 25th November, 1995 to the effect that they do not wish to appear either in person or through an authorised representative and the bench may take into account their letter dated 6-3-1987 forming part of the appeal.
3. We have accordingly gone through the appeal memorandum and the impugned order and allowed the Ld. DR to make his submissions.
4. Ld. D.R. stated that the appellants had imported ZOOM LENS for Movie Cameras and the item was classified under Heading 90.02 read with 90.08(ii) and the goods were allowed to be cleared without charging the countervailing duty.
5. Subsequently it was realised that the item was not exempted for the purpose of C.V. Duty and hence, the less charge demand was issued. The Asstt. Collector confirmed the demand and the Collector (Appeals) confirmed the order of the A.C.
6. The appellant has requested for the benefit of Notification No. 362/76 as it was the importers contention that Sl. No. 6 of this exemption does not specifically cover movie camera lens or other special lenses.
However, it was department’s contention that in the Notification No. 362/76, Col. II of the table mentions the heading and Col. III the description of the articles which are excluded from the benefit of the exemption and the Sl. No. 6 of this table mentions 90.01 or 90.02 in Col. II and glass lens and prisms in Col. III and although meant for a movie camera, zoom lens is and remains glass lens.
7. The appellants in their grounds of appeal have emphasised that the department has erred in clarifying zoom lens, glass lens; the zoom lens is shooting lens used for filming and the glass lens is covered under Sl. No. 6 of Notification No. 362/76 are simple lens and not special lens meant for movie camera and projector etc.
8. The Ld. D.R. stated in response to queries from the bench that even the zoom lens although meant for movie cameras are a variety of glass lens and hence hit by the exclusion.
9. We have considered the above submissions.
10. We observe that the appellant is correct in pointing out that zoom lens is a special type of lens meant for movie cameras etc. At the same time it cannot be denied that it is a variety of glass lens and in the absence of any indication to the effect that Sr. No. 6 in the Notification was intended to cover only simple lenses and not special lenses, the item is hit by the exclusion entry. In this connection we further note that no technical or commercial literature has been produced by the appellant in support of his contention that zoom lens is required to be treated differently from other glass lenses.
11. Further more, the item has been assessed under 90.02 read with 90.08(ii), and 90.02 is specifically mentioned in the headings shown in Col. 2.
12. In view of the above position, we consider that the appellants claim has remained unsubstantiated and there is no reason for us to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities in the facts and circumstances of this case.
13. The appeal is therefore, rejected.