9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
Classification of Passive Infrared Intrusion Alarm System - 8912B under Customs Tariff Act. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Classification of the imported alarm system under sub-heading 8531.10 or 8531.90 The appeal raised the question of whether the Passive Infrared Intrusion Alarm System - 8912B imported by M/s. RSF Technology Corpn. should be classified under sub-heading 8531.10 as an alarm system or under sub-heading 8531.90 as parts of an alarm system. The Appellants argued that they imported various component parts of a Burglar Alarm system based on information received that these parts were freely importable under OGL. The Additional Commissioner confiscated the Passive Infrared Alarm system, considering it as having the essential character of a complete burglar alarm system. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, emphasizing that the imported goods had the essential characteristics of a complete burglar alarm system. Issue 2: Interpretation of the essential character of the imported goods The Appellants contended that the goods imported were parts and accessories of a burglar alarm system, not a complete system. They referenced a circuit diagram and supplier's letter to support their claim. The Appellants also relied on legal precedents, including the decision in Auto Alarm Industries v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, to argue that the imported parts should not be considered a complete instrument. Additionally, they cited the decision in Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. CCE, Bombay, to support their position that parts used in manufacturing goods should not be denied exemption based on being finished products. Issue 3: Department's argument on the classification of the imported goods The Departmental Representative argued that the Appellants themselves admitted that what was imported constituted a burglar alarm system. They highlighted that when assembled, the imported goods, including Motion Detector, Magnetic Switch, piezo siren, and power adaptor, formed the essential character of a Burglar Alarm system. Referring to Rule 2A of Interpretative Rules, the Department contended that the goods should be assessed as a Burglar Alarm system under sub-heading 8535.10. They also pointed out discrepancies in the description of goods and the timing of the supplier's letter. Judgment Outcome: The Tribunal considered the descriptions provided by the foreign supplier and the nature of the imported goods. The Tribunal noted that the foreign supplier explicitly labeled the goods as an Alarm system, consisting of four basic parts. Based on Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules, which allows for incomplete articles with the essential character of the complete article to be classified similarly, the Tribunal concluded that the imported goods indeed had the essential character of a complete alarm system. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the Auto Alarm Industries decision, emphasizing the clear indication from the supplier that the goods were an Alarm system. Consequently, the Tribunal agreed with the classification under sub-heading 8531.10, leading to the goods being liable for confiscation due to the absence of a specific import license. The Tribunal upheld the redemption fine and penalty imposed, ultimately rejecting the Appeal.
|
