Page 209 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

2020 ] IN RE : DCS INTERNATIONAL TRADING PVT. LTD. 743

Court judgment dated 1-7-2007 in Civil Appeal No. 6988/2005 in the case of M/s.
MIL India Limited [2007 (210) E.L.T. 188 (S.C.)].
4. Personal hearing was fixed on 25-9-2019 in this case. No one ap-
peared on behalf of the applicant or the respondent on this date. However, the
applicant vide their letter dated 25-9-2019 requested for a copy of the Revision
Application. Another date of hearing was fixed on 7-10-2019. Sh. B.K. Singh, Ad-
vocate and Sh. R. N. Singh, consultant appeared on behalf of the respondent.
They contended that there is no evidence with the applicant that the impugned
consignments were of ‘worked’ hair. The respondent submitted their written
submissions vide their letter dated 21-10-2019 and reiterated the point they had
made during the hearing. Since no one has appeared on behalf of the applicant
on the second date also nor any request for adjournment has been received the
case is being taken up for final disposal.
5. On examination of the relevant case records, the Commissioner (Ap-
peals)’s order, counter-reply, additional submissions and the Revision applica-
tion, it is observed that the main issue to be decided here is the classification of
‘impugned goods’ as to whether they fall under RITC 05010010 or RITC 6703. It
is on record that the description of the goods remained the same during the en-
tire period i.e. prior to September, 2011, between September, 2011 to December,
2012 (12-12-2012) and after 12-12-2012. However, the respondent has been chang-
ing the classification of goods from time to time so as to avail benefit of export
incentives scheme available to them from time to time. This fact has been admit-
ted by the respondent in their letter dated 13-2-2013 addressed to Dy. Commis-
sioner, Export Commissionerate, Air Cargo, New Customs House, New Delhi-
110037.
The explanatory notes to Harmonised commodity description and cod-
ing system w.r.t. sub-heading 0503 under Chapter 5 and sub-heading 6703 under
Chapter 67 are reproduced as follows :-
Chapter 0501
“This headings cover human hair, unworked, whether or not washed or
scoured, including hair laid parallel but not arranged so that the root ends
and tip ends are respectively together, and waste human hair.”
Chapter 6703
“with the exception of human hair which has been simply washed, scoured
or sorted to length but not arranged so that the root ends and tips respec-
tively are together and waste of human hair (heading 05.01), this heading
covers human hair which has been dressed or otherwise worked (for exam-
ple, thinned, bleached, dyed, waved or curled) for use in pastiche (e.g.,
manufacture of wigs, curls or switches ) or for other purposes.”
From the plain reading of the both the headings it is observed that the main dif-
ference between the classification of the human hair in respective above-
mentioned headings is the ‘dressing’ of the hair or otherwise ‘worked’. It is also
on record and also admitted by the respondent themselves that the impugned
goods i.e. human hair are dressed. In all these cases the human hair were de-
clared as dressed by respondent himself on the export documents. Once the hu-
man hair are dressed these automatically fall under RITC 6703 and not under
0501. It is also on record that the Director of the M/s. DCS International has him-
self accepted in his statement dated 30-5-2013 before the Customs authorities that
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  209