ORDER
Lajja Ram, Member (T)
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. (TELCO) the issue for consideration is whether the Compressor Housing imported by TELCO was a part which was interchangeable part of motor vehicles for the purposes of concessional rate of customs duty under Notification No. 69/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987. There is no dispute that the goods were classifiable under sub-heading No. 9806.00 of the Customs Tariff which covered parts of Machinery, equipment, appliances, instruments and articles of Chapters 84, 85, 86, 89 and 90. The importers claimed the benefit of Notification No. 69/87-Cus. on the ground that the parts imported by them were for the compressor which was covered under Heading No. 84.14 of the Tariff. The matter was adjudicated by the Asstt. Collector of Customs who observed that Turbocharger could be used/fitted in passenger cars, diesel engine and as the parts of Turbochargers were capable of being used in motor vehicles they were not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 69/87-Cus. He, however, extended the benefit of Notification No. 68/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987. On appeal the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay observed that the functioning of the motor vehicle engine was directly dependent on the Turbocharger of which the goods imported were a part. He referred to the appellants contention that out of 11 different vehicles being manufactured by them, they were using the Turbocharger only on Model No. 1660. After referring to the provision of Notification No. 69/87 he confirmed the order passed by the Asstt. Collector, Customs.
2. We have heard Shri T. Viswanathan, Advocate for the appellant and Shri S.N. Ojha, JDR for the Revenue.
3. Shri T. Viswanathan, Advocate stated that the Compressor Housing imported by them was for the Turbocharger and that the Turbocharger was a compressor classifiable under Heading No. 84.14, sub-heading No. 8414.80 of the Customs Tariff. He further stated that the expression used in the Notification No. 69/87-Cus. was interchangeable. He referred to the Dictionary meaning of the term interchangeable and submitted that only those goods which could replace any specific part in the motor vehicles could be covered by this expression. In this case he submitted that Turbocharger could not be considered as a motor vehicle component and that the description given in the Bill of Entry was not correct. He referred to the product literature on record and the publication on automobile industry to support his contention that the goods imported were not motor vehicle parts. He also referred to the HSN explanatory notes and in particular referred to Section Note 17 of the Tariff. It was his contention that the parts of motor vehicles were not covered by the Chapter Heading No. 84 of the Tariff.
4. In reply Shri S.N. Ojha, JDR reiterated that the goods imported were covered by Heading No. 98.06, the motor vehicle parts as such were classifiable under Chapter 87 of the Tariff and as the intention was not to extend exemption under Notification No. 69/87-Cus. to those parts which could be interchanged with parts of motor vehicles, specific provision was made in that notification. The parts of motor vehicles were covered by the separate scheme of exemption with regard to Chapter 87 of the Tariff. He submitted that there was no dispute that the goods were actually meant for the motor vehicles and he referred to the product literature at Page 31 of the paper book. He also referred to the description at Page 26 of the paper book.
5. In rejoinder the ld. Advocate submitted that the HSN explanatory notes were relevant for interpreting not only the Tariff entries but also the exemption notification.
6. We have carefully considered the matter. The only issue for our consideration is whether the goods imported Compressor Housing were eligible for assessment at concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 69/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987. Under Notification No. 69/87-Cus. parts classifiable under Heading No. 98.06 of the Tariff if are the goods specified in Column (2) of the Table annexed to that notification were eligible for the concessional rate of customs duty. Against the S. No. 4, Heading No. 84.14 was covered. It was, however, provided in the notification that nothing contained in that notification was applicable in respect of the parts which was interchangeable with parts of motor vehicles.
7. The ld. Departmental Representative had submitted that the motor vehicle parts as such were covered by Chapter 87 of the Tariff and the scheme of exemption as relevant to the goods classifiable therein takes care of the motor vehicle part as such. As the intention was that the parts which were classifiable under different Chapters other than Chapter 87 if they were for use in the motor vehicles should not be eligible for the benefit of that notification, specific provision had been inserted in the notification that the parts which were interchangeable with parts of motor vehicles will not be eligible for the benefit of that Notification No. 69/87-Cus.
8. In this case there is no dispute that the Turbocharger was a part of the goods imported for motor vehicles application. In the Bill of Entry the importers had declared the goods as motor vehicles components. From the technical literature also it is clear that the goods imported were for motor vehicle application. The Turbocharger was for the internal combustion engine and the appellants had admitted that it was actually used in a particular type of motor vehicle which had been referred to as Model No. 1660.
9. The ld. Advocate had referred to the definition of interchangeable in Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles wherein it is defined as under:
“Interchangeable – (sic) (adv) 1450. [- OFr. entrediangeable, f. the verb (prec); see – ABLE.] +1. Mutual, reciprocal -1665. + b. as adv. Mutually -1644.12. a. Of two or more things : Coming or following in place of each other -1783. + b. Of one thing: Changeable -1749.3. Admitting an exchange of place or function 1569.
2.a. Darknesse and light hold i. dominions SIR T. BROWNE, b. I., Weather 1749. 3. Not one., recognizes it (for the nonce) as i. with ‘for the occasion’ F. HALL. Hence interchangeability, Inter.changeableness. Inter-changeably adv. 1375.
In Penguine’s English Dictionary the expression interchanged has been defined as under:
‘inter’ change/-‘chaynj/ vt 1 to put each of (2 things) in the place of the other 2 EXCHANGE 1 ~vi to change places reciprocally [ME entrechaungen, fr MF entrechangier, fr OF, fr entire. inter- + changier to change] – interchangeable adj, interchangeably adv, interchangeability n
10. The concept of reciprocity is referred to in this definition. As the goods imported were for the Turbocharger which had motor vehicle application and as the goods imported were actually used in the motor vehicle, even when they were not classifiable under Chapter 87, we consider that the benefit of Notification No. 69/87, dated 1-3-1987 had been rightly denied by the learned Collector, Customs (Appeals), Bombay. On page 2 of his order with regard to Notification No. 69/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987 he had recorded as under:
Notification 69/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987 exempts parts of articles specified in the schedule annexed to the said notification from certain percentage of duty. The impugned goods are parts of Turbocharger which is a motor vehicle component. Under the exclusion Clause (ii) of Notification 69/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987 parts interchangeable with parts of motor vehicle are excluded from the purview of the said notification. Since the impugned -goods are parts which are interchangeable with parts of motor vehicle these are not eligible for assessment at concessional rate under Notification 69/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987.
The impugned order is upheld and appeal rejected.
11. The ld. Advocate had referred to the HSN explanatory notes. We find that in this case there is no dispute relating to classification at the goods. The dispute is only with regard to the applicability of the exemption notification which specifically excluded the goods (which were otherwise classifiable under Heading No. 98.06) if the parts imported were interchangeable with parts of motor vehicles. The parts for the goods classifiable under Chapters 84, 85, 86, 89 & 90 were covered by the exemption notification while the motor vehicle parts as such were covered more specifically under Chapter 87. For the parts which were covered by Heading 98.06 the clear intention was to exclude those parts having motor vehicle application. Thus the proviso as referred to above was inserted at the end of the notification. As we find that the parts imported were for motor vehicle application, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the Collector, Customs (Appeals), in this case. Taking all the relevant facts and considerations of the case into account we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is rejected.