ORDER
S.S. Kang, Member (J)
1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta.
2. In this case, the issue is of classification of rollers imported by the appellants. The appellants claimed the classification under Tariff Heading 7326.19 of the Customs Tariff as other articles of iron or steel forged or stamped, but not further worked. Whereas the Revenue classified the goods under Tariff Heading 8482.99 as other parts of ball or roller bearings.
3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the goods imported by the appellants were nothing but semi-finished green rollers which are not capable of being used as such as part of roller bearings. The green rollers imported by the appellants, had to undergo processes at the factory of the appellants before they could be used as part of roller bearings. As such, the imported goods cannot be identified as parts of roller bearings as they did not have the essential characteristics of a part of roller bearing.
4. He, further, submits that the imported goods had to undergo various processes i.e. surface carburising, washing surface hardening, heat treatment to achieve hardness, rough grinding, finished grinding and honing to reduce size. He submits that the process of carburising is the addition of carbon to the surface of low carbon steel at high temperature for surface hardening. He, further, submits that unless and until the imported rollers go through the aforesaid processes, they cannot be identified as part of roller bearing nor can it be said that they have essential characteristics as part of roller bearing. Ld. Counsel submits that the supplier vide letter dated 6-4-1995, clarified that the goods, in question, were in semi-finished condition. He relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Motor Industries Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Customs reported in 1992 (62) E.L.T. 13 and submits that the goods requiring major processes like turning, grinding, broaching, groove cutting, heat treatment and surface treatment, such goods cannot be construed as having the essential character of complete and finished article and cannot fall within the scope of Rule 2(a) of Rules for Interpretation of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed.
5. Ld. JDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue, submits that in the invoice and in the Bill of Lading the goods were described by the appellants themselves as finished roller bearings. He submits that even the part number was also mentioned. In respect of clarification given by the supplier of the goods, ld. JDR submits that this letter procured by the appellants after adjudication order was passed. He, further, submits that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of BHEL reported in 1987 (28) E.L.T. 545 held that no general principle for determination of essential character of an article in terms of Interpretation Rule 2(a) can be laid down. The facts and circumstances of each article will have to be looked into to grasp the essential character of the article. He also relied upon the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Auto Limited v. C.C., Bombay reported in 1988 (33) E.L.T. 367 (Tribunal) and submits that in this case the Tribunal held that semi-finished components having precise shaped and forged to specific dimensions have attained approximate shape and outline of finished article. Hence Interpretative Rule 2(a) is applicable. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be dismissed.
6. Heard both sides.
7. In this case, the contention of the appellants is that the imported parts and components are in semi-finished stage and various processes are to be carried out before their use as parts of roller bearings. In the invoice and in the Bill of Lading, the goods, in question, were declared as finished roller bearings even the part number was mentioned. The description in the Bill of Lading is as under :
“Pallates said to contain finished rollers R 33010 for Bearings Part No. 33010 Brussels Tariff Nomenclature 8482.20 French Origin”
8. The appellants now pleaded that, in fact, these are not finished parts. They relied upon the clarification given by the supplier vide letter dated 6-4-1995. In this letter, the supplier clarified that the invoice shows the product as R 33010 finished roller but, actually, the product shipped was R 33010 Green Stock Rollers, that is to say that the product seen was in a semi-finished condition. In this case, the adjudication order was passed on 24-2-1995. Therefore, we find that this clarification was obtained by the appellants after passing of the adjudication order.
9. The appellants relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Motor Industries Co. Ltd. (supra). In that case it was admitted that the goods were imported in incomplete or unfinished form whereas in the present case the Bill of Lading and the invoice describe the goods as finished roller bearings. Therefore, the ratio of the decision, relied upon by the appellants, is not applicable in the present case.
10. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed.