AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 20.4.2010 which upheld the order-in-original dated 10.2.2010 in terms of which the benefit
of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 1.3.2002 (Sr. No. 244) was denied on the ground that the goods imported were not connectors, rejecting the
contention of the appellants that the goods were actually connectors imported in CKD condition and that by simple pliers can be assembled into
connectors. The appellants have taken the same plea before us.
We have perused the connected papers. We find that in this very case in the earlier order-in-original dated 16.12.2009 the adjudicating authority
clearly held as under:
The samples were seen. The items are in the form of components and put together may form a connector but as such they are not in a
identifiable product as a connector. This may require a simple hand assembly or pliers as stated by the importer in their letter but the item
has not attained its character as a connector as some more process is required to call it a connector. Even packing/labelling is also called
to undergo before calling them a connector. The identifiability of this product at the time of import is only can say components and after a
simple process whatever they may call is required to call it a connector.
The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order dated 18.1.2010 (passed in respect of the said order-in-original dated 16.12.2009) recorded his
observation as under :
It is the contention of the appellants that they have imported connectors only, but they are in unassembled form. From the aforesaid
examination report, it is not clear whether the parts contained in plastic bags would form a complete connector in unassembled form or not.
This fact is required to be examined again because if each plastic bag contains parts of a complete connector, then by virtue of Rule 2(a) of
the Rules for the interpretation for the Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, it will be treated as connector and in view of the aforesaid circular
of the Board, the denial of the benefit of the said notification would not be legal. If it is otherwise, the benefit cannot be extended to the
impugned goods. This aspect has also not been examined by the adjudicating authority. Since this a matter of fact and is required to be
looked into by the assessing officer, the matter required to be remanded back
In the impugned order dated 20.4.2010 it is seen that the original adjudicating authority's findings have been recorded as under:
The goods were examined in the light of the directions of the Appellate Authority and found to be parts of connectors which do not form an
essential character of a connector. This is a fact and was reconfirmed by the re-examination report dated 30.1.2010.
The re-examination report dated 30.1.2010 referred to above by the adjudicating authority as reproduced in the impugned order reads as under :
There are six packages containing parts made up of plastics, steel and rubber as their base material. These are contained in 6 types of
transparent poly bags.
One type of poly bag contains 6 kinds of parts, all in equal numbers and each kind is further packed in smaller poly bags separately.
And same report as above except the kind/type numbers.
As is evident from the re-examination report, the contention of the appellants that what they imported was connectors in CKD condition and that
the imported goods were assemblable into connectors ""by simple pliers"" is not negated thereby. The appellants contention is also in conformity with the
finding recorded by the original adjudicating authority in the order dated 16.12.2009 (reproduced in para 2 above). The Commissioner (Appeals) has
agreed that by virtue of Rule 2(a) of the General Rules of Interpretation in such a situation the goods will be treated as connectors. In view of the
foregoing, we are of the view that the contention of the appellants cannot not be upheld particularly when it is in complete harmony with the factual
finding of the original adjudicating authority recorded in the order-in-original dated 16.12.2009 and even the re-examination report. Consequently, the
appeal is allowed with consequential benefits.