By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, JULY 02, 2014: THE issue relates to classification of Drawings and Designs imported by the appellant through courier. The appellant had sought classification under 99.10 being for instructional purposes. Alternatively, they claimed classification under 49.01 and claimed exemption under Notification No 38/94. The issue is now decided by the Tribunal pursuant to the remand directions by the Supreme Court.

According to revenue, the Adjudicating Authority held that the drawing and designs imported were not "books" but being "goods" were classifiable under heading 98.03. The goods imported were neither part of book or booklet for which that is not classifiable under heading 49.01 as claimed by the appellant. He rightly denied the classification sought by the appellant. Also he further examined the intent of the Notification No.86/94-CUS, dated 01.03.1994 and held that the exemption cannot be granted as a matter of right, but deniable as a matter of public policy. If the object of the Notification is defeated, no question of grant of exemption under that arises. Accordingly both the appeals are liable to be dismissed.

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal held:

The appellant submitted that the goods falling under Chapter 49 relating to printed books shall be liable to nil rate of duty in terms of Notification No.38/94-CUS and No.107/93-CUS , dated 30.03.1993. Revenue negated the plea on the ground that the imports were goods, not being books at all and liable to duty being baggage. Normally, "books" mean, text books or reference books meant for reading by general public, professionals and students.

The imported goods were meant for sole purpose of the appellant, which cannot be regarded as "book" not being meant for reading by general public. Those were technical literature relating to the plant and machinery imported by appellant to bring such plant and machinery into existence and carry out manufacture using the technology agreed to be imparted.

The supply of plant and machinery were integrally connected with drawing and design and vice verse and one was not substitute of the other. Rather they were complimentary to each other. Accordingly claim of the appellant technical literature pertaining to the plant and machinery to be "book" is inconceivable and such plea is absurd. Supply of drawing and design was not independent of supply of plant and machinery. The drawings, designs and technical documents are no doubt goods being integrally connected with the plant and machinery and not classifiable under CTH 49.01.

In the present case, those were inevitable necessity of the capital goods to come into existence. Inseparability of each other was their virtue. Therefore it does not appeal to common sense to treat the import consignment independent of plant and machinery to be called "book".

Once the goods (drawing and designs) were not books, the notification benefit claimed by appellant is also deniable and adjudication was not time barred. Even the alternate claim of the appellant that the import of drawing and design shall fall under the Tariff Heading 99.10 is inconceivable because those were not specimens, models, wall pictures nor diagrams for instructional purpose as is specified by that entry. Accordingly the appellant fails to succeed on merit as to the claim that the imported drawings, designs and technical documents were books.

(See 2014-TIOL-1180-CESTAT-DEL)