ORIENT CERAMICS & INDIA LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI

Citation: [2008] 7 S.C.R. 70 · Decided: 29-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 7 S.C.R. 70 
A 
ORIENT CERAMICS & INDIA LTD. 
v. 
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI 
(Civil Appeal No. 5799 of 2002) 
B 
APRIL 29, 2008 
'' 
[ASHOK BHAN AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] 
). 
Central Excise Taritr Act, 1985 - Tariff heading 6907.90 
or 6908. 90 - Classification under - Import of tiles - Claim 
c that imported goods were unglazed porcelain tiles classifiable 
under tariff heading 6907. 90 - Held: In view of test report of 
Central Revenue Control Laboratory, tiles imported by 
assessee were glazed tiles, classifiable under tariff heading 
6908. 90 - License was required for import for such goods -
D Also tiles manufactured by assessee were not 'other ceramic 
articles' under tariff entry 6914.10. 
)_ 
The question which arose for consideration in this 
appeal was whether the goods imported by the assessee 
were unglazed porcelain tiles classifiable under heading 
E 6907.90 and as such would fall under the free list and 
could be imported without license. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 From the reading of the report of Central 
F Revenue Control Laboratory, and the distinction between 
the unglazed and glazed tiles pointed out by the 
r 
appellants in their correspondence with the Department 
that the porcelain unglazed tiles are almost completely 
vitrified and would absorb no water (impermeable), and 
G glazed tiles have a porous body permeable to water, it 
is evident that the tiles imported by the appellants were 
not unglazed but glazed which was classifiable under 
tariff heading 6908.90. License of import for such goods 
'!Vas required, as per policy, before importing which the 
H 
70 
ORIENT CERAMICS & INDIA LTD. v. COMMISSIONER 
71 
OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI 
appellants admittedly did not have. Reasons recorded A 
by the Tribunal in affirming the order passed by the 
Commissioner of Customs are perfectly valid and 
there is no reason to disagree with the same. [Paras 8 
and 9] [74-G; 75-A-E] 
' ' 
1.2 The submission of the appellants in order to B 
-( 
wriggle out of the restricted list of the imports, that if the 
goods were not classifiable under tariff heading 6907.90, 
then the goods were classifiable under tariff item 6914.10 
as per classification issued by the Director General of 
Foreign Trade (DGFT) cannot be accepted. Entry 6914 c 
pertains to 'other ceramic articles' and tariff sub-heading 
6914.10 deals with other ceramic articles made of 
'porcelain or china'. The goods imported by the appellants 
were classifiable under tariff heading 6908.90, the same 
cannot be brought under the residuary clause 6914. D 
..r 
Appellants in their Bills of Entry did not claim classification 
under heading 6914.10. They claimed the classification 
under tariff heading 6907 .90 as unglazed tiles. It had never 
been their case that the goods were not tiles or that they 
were "other ceramic articles" referred to in the DGFT E 
classification under sub-heading 6914.10. [Para 10] 
[75-E, F; 76-C, D, E] 
1.3 While ceramics are made from minerals such as 
clay, feldspar, silica and talc, the porcelain is made out 
from a mixture of ingredients like kaolin, petuntse. Kaolin 
F 
is a pure white clay and petuntse is a type of feldspar found 
only in China. It has not been proved by the appellants 
that the tiles imported by it were made from the mixture of 
ingredients like kaoline and petuntse. His case was that 
tiles imported by it were unglazed ceramic tiles. Since, G 
the material which goes into production in the ceramic 
>-
tiles and porcelain tiles is different, in the absence of any 
material to show that the tiles manufactured by the 
appellants were porcelain tiles made out of kaolin and 
petuntse, it cannot be held that the tiles imported by the H 
72 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2008] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
appellants were other ceramic articles falling under tariff 
entry 6914.10. [Para 10] [75-G; 76-A, B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
5799 of 2002. 
B 
From the final Order No. 126/2002-D dated 8.5.2002 of 
.. 
the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New 
). 
Delhi in Appeal No. C/411/2001-D. 
A.R. Mahav Rao, Alok Yadav (for M.P. Devanath) for the 
Appellants. 
c 
T.S. Doabia, Vikas Sharma and B.V. Bairam Das for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
BHAN, J. 1. This Appeal has been filed u/s. 35L(b) of the 
Central Excise Act, 1944 (h,ereinafter referred to as the 'Act') 
)_ 
against the Final Order No. 126/2002-D dated 08.05.2002 in 
A

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.