9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Classification of imported item under sub-heading 8479.89, grant of benefit under Notification No. 59/88 for heavy duty tape recorder, interpretation of technical literature for classification, burden of proof on importer, remand to original authority for further evidence. Classification under sub-heading 8479.89: The appeals arose from a common order where the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim for classification under sub-heading 8479.89 but accepted classification under sub-heading 8520.90. The Collector held that the item is a Sound Recording Magnetic Tape Recording apparatus and should be classified under Heading 8520.20. The lower authority's classification was deemed correct based on technical literature, and the claim for classification under 8479.89 was rejected as it is residuary for classification. The benefit of Notification No. 59/88 for heavy duty tape recorders was granted based on manufacturer's literature describing the item as a new generation high-speed tape recorder-cum-duplicator designed for heavy use. The Revenue challenged this classification, arguing lack of evidence from the importer. Grant of benefit under Notification No. 59/88: The Revenue contested the grant of benefit under the Notification, claiming the item did not qualify as Sound Broadcast Equipment or a heavy duty tape recorder. The importer relied on manufacturer's catalog and specifications to support the claim that the item is a heavy duty tape recorder. The Revenue argued that the burden of proof lies with the importer to show the item's classification under the specified sub-heading of the Notification. The Tribunal found that the technical literature did not conclusively prove the item to be a heavy duty tape recorder, leading to a remand to the original authority for further evidence. Interpretation of technical literature for classification: The Tribunal emphasized the importance of technical literature in determining the classification of the imported item. It noted that the lower authorities correctly chose the most appropriate heading based on the item being a magnetic tape recorder, leading to its classification under Heading 8520.90. The classification under sub-heading 8479.89 was rejected due to the nature of the item and technical specifications provided. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' classification based on the technical literature available. Burden of proof on importer: The Tribunal highlighted that the burden of proof for claiming benefits under the Notification rests on the importer. Despite examining technical literature, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support the claim that the item is a heavy duty tape recorder or Sound Broadcast Equipment. Both the importer and the Revenue failed to provide conclusive evidence to establish the item's classification, leading to a remand for the importer to produce additional technical literature and evidence of trade understanding. Remand to original authority for further evidence: In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded the Revenue appeal to the original authority for a fresh examination of the evidence. The original authority was directed to allow the importer an opportunity to present additional technical literature and evidence of trade understanding to support the claim that the imported item qualifies as Sound Broadcast Equipment under the Notification. The importer's appeal was rejected, and the Revenue's appeal was remanded for further proceedings.
|
