ORDER
S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President
1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi.
2. The learned Advocate stated that the main issue involved in this case is whether fully glazed paper press laminates imported as parts of demiplex cloth pressing plant were classifiable as part of the machine/plant under Heading 8451.90 or as paper under Heading 4823.90.
3. It was their contention that the item is specially manufactured by the suppliers as parts of the plant. They are used to transmit heat uniformly on to the woollen fabric to give it a delicate and quality finish which gives a permanence to the fabric. The woollen, worsted, mohair and cashmere fabrics are passed through two layers of these fully glazed paper press laminates via over head feed rollers. Of the two layers of glazed paper press laminates one layer is hot and the other is cold. The layer which is hot is heated by regularly interspaced electric heating laminates. The advantages of this type of heat pressing is that it prevents contact between the element and the cloth, to maintain even heat level throughout the process, and avoids cloth marking and reduction of wear and tear of the laminates. Therefore, it will be very clear from the above function of the paper press laminates that it is designed for specific use in the Demiplex cloth pressing plant.
4. Further the parts list filed by the appellant supplied to it by the supplier of the plant in U.K. clearly shows that the fully glazed paper press laminates are parts and not consumables as held by the Collector (Appeals) as will be evident from page 8 of the parts list filed by the appellant during the course of hearing. Further the packing list and the parts list attached to the invoice clearly indicates the group no. of the paper press laminates in case of any orders to be placed on the supplier of the plant. Therefore, these laminates should be classified as parts of the machine under Chapter Heading 8451.90 and not under 4823.90. Further it is settled law that a specific entry will prevail over the general entry and as Chapter Heading 4823.90 is a general and a residuary entry in the Chapter relating to paper and paper boards. Chapter Heading 8451.90 specifically covers parts of the machine falling under Chapter Heading 8451.30. Moreover the finding that the goods in question do not have any specific dimensions is patently false. The examination report on the reverse of Bill of Entry clearly mentions the specific dimensions of the goods in question.
5. The appellants also filed written submission received on 15th May 1992.
6. The learned Jt. CDR reiterated the Department’s view points. He also filed a written submission, dated 7th May 1992. He emphasised that the items were examined and it was found that they do not have any specific size, shape design etc. to merit classification as parts of machinery. They can be appropriately classified only under Heading 4823.90 on the basis of the material which is essentially glazed paper.
7. The goods are obviously bought out items and a specific size has been given in the part list so as to correlate it with the invoice.
8. Actually this Item of paper is a consumable one and has been rightly assessed under 4823.59 “as other paper” cut to size or shape.
9. We observe that the learned Advocate’s contention have strong force. The appellants have filed a supplier’s pamphlet showing photo, design and a write up on Operation a copy of the parts list and the invoice and packing list and the Department has supplied the copy of the duplicate bill-of-entry containing the examination report. The technical write up contained in the pamphlet goes to show that these laminates perform the function of parts. The part list includes them and so does the packing list. The examination report on the back of the bill-of-entry indicates the specifications which agree with the invoice.
10. Under the circumstances, it appears that the learned Assistant Collector had made a factual error and the learned Jt. CDR has also not interpreted the facts correctly. He has allowed his imagination a free play in his written submissions. There is nothing to doubt the correctness or genuineness of the documents produced and the arguments of the learned Advocate justify classification as parts particularly in view of the fact that they are designed for specific use in a particular type of pressing plant and were intended to be used as parts. Even if they were replaceable they would only fall in the category of replaceable parts. Furthermore a specific entry will prevail over a general entry of a residuary nature.
11. In view of the evidence produced before us, we consider that the item is correctly classifiable under Heading 8451.90. As such the appeal is accepted.