MURREE BREWERY COMPANY LIMITED vs COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
The petitioner imported two consignments of Radiation Recuperator Equipment, initially claiming classification under PCT Heading 8419.5090 chargeable to 10% customs duty. Authorities later reclassified the goods under PCT Heading 8419.5010 as "Shell or Tube type" chargeable to 35% customs duty, which the petitioner paid under protest. Refund claims, an appeal before the Customs Appellate Tribunal, and a subsequent Customs Reference Application before the High Court of Sindh were all dismissed, upholding the 35% duty classification. Seeking leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that equipment shaped like both "Shell and Tube" rather than strictly "Shell or Tube" fell under the residual "other" category. The core legal question concerned the correct tariff classification of the imported machinery under the relevant PCT headings. The Supreme Court held that goods shaped like both shell and tube logically fall within the description of "Shell or Tube type" and do not merit exclusion into the residual category. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower forums.
- Whether goods shaped like both shell and tube fall under the tariff classification for shell or tube type equipment?
- Did the lower forums properly appreciate the factual and legal position regarding the PCT heading classification?
- Section 196, Customs Act 1969
' GHULAM RABBANI, J.--- The petitioner had imported two consignments consisting of Radiation Recuperator Equipment claiming that the imported goods fell under PCT Heading 8419,5090 chargeable to Customs duty at 10%. The available Shed staff, on first examination, declared the goods chargeable to same Customs duty under a different PCT Heading 8419.8990. On further examination, in the light of Manufacturer's Catalogue the classification of imported goods was declared under PCT Heading 8419.5010 chargeable to 35% Customs duty which the petitioner paid under protest. Later, the petitioner filed a refund claim which, ultimately, came up before the Collector of Customs (Appraisement), who observed that the goods were essentially a Shell type Recuperator equipped with cylindrical tube bundles; therefore, they were rightly made chargeable to Customs duty at 35% vide Order-inOriginal dated 13-5-2005. Petitioner preferred thereagainst an appeal which was dismissed by Customs Appellate Tribunal under order dated 5-4-2006.
Feeling aggrieved petitioner made a Customs Reference Application under section 196 of the Custom Act, 1969 that, too, was dismissed by a learned Division Bench of High Court of Sindh vide order dated 17-3-2009 against which the petitioner has, now, sought leave to appeal.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that under Heading 8419.5010 classifiable as "Shell or Tube type" only those goods would fall which were shaped either like a "Shell" or "Tube" type and not those which were shaped like "Shell and Tube" both. According to him the Radiation Recuperator imported by the petitioner was like "Shell and Tube", therefore, the same fell under the description of "other" chargeable to 15% duty under PCT Heading 8419.5090. Learned counsel contended that the Customs Appellate Tribunal and learned Division Bench of High Court, as well, did not apply their judicial mind and failed to appreciate the factual and legal position correctly.
3. We have given due consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for petitioner and with his assistance we have examined the record made available before us. Learned counsel for petitioner has admitted that the goods imported by petitioner were shaped like Shell as well as Tube, therefore, it does not appeal to a prudent mind to take the same out from description "Shell or Tube type" and put it under description "other" not akin to relevant description. We, therefore, do not feel persuaded to agree to the proposition advanced by learned counsel for petitioner. The adjudicating officer had correctly classified the imported goods chargeable under PCT Heading 8419.5010. So also, the Customs Appellate Tribunal and learned Division Bench of High Court rightly dismissed the appeal and the Customs Reference of petitioner. The concurrent findings, seen in the above perspective, are unexceptionable. This petition merits no consideration and the same is dismissed accordingly. Leave refused.