TITAN WATCHES LIMITED Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants manufacture watches. For the purpose, they import watch cases. Ordinarily, in the case of a wrist watch, the watch case is attached to the wrist by a leather strap or a metal bracelet. Catering, no doubt, to the dictates of fashion, the appellants imported, in the present case, a watch case of which the bracelet was an integral and inseperable part. It would appear from what we have seen that the watch case and bracelet come from the same metal mould. The question in this appeal is whether the article that the appellants imported is entitled to the benefit of one or other of the two notifications to which we now refer.

(2.) An exemption notification (No. 43/85) dated 28th February, 1985, exempted "components of mechanical wrist watches and quartz analog wrist watches (excluding those specified in the Table annexed hereto)" from customs duty in excess of 40%ad valorem.In the Table to that notification, at item 14, "Complete watch case" was specified. The other notification (No. 44/85), dated 28th February, 1985, exempted the parts of mechanical and quartz analog wrist watches or components specified in the Table thereto from customs duty in excess of, originally, 30% and later, by the substituting notification No. 65/87 in the same terms, 60% ad valorem. The Table thereof listed at item 15 "Complete watch case for quartz analog wrist watches."

(3.) It is the case of the appellants that what they imported was a complete watch case and, therefore, they are entitled to the benefit of the said notification No. 44/85, replaced by notification No. 65/87 in the same terms. In any event, if what they imported is found not be a complete watch case, they claim the benefit of notification No. 43/85. The Tribunal took the view that what the appellants imported was an "integrated product bracelet attached with watch case or watch case attached with bracelet (which) could not be separated." In its view, the article was not a watch case and was, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of either notification.