Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (11) TMI 61 - AT - CustomsClassification Appellant contended that goods(NAC) imported classified under 8473.30 or parts and accessories of machines of heading 84.71 but department oppose it - After considering all the fact by the authority decision made in favour of appellant
Issues: Classification of imported goods - Heading 8473.30 vs. Heading 8543.90
In this case, the appellants imported goods known as 'Network Access Controller' and sought classification under Heading 8473.30 or parts of machines under Heading 84.71. The Department argued for classification under Heading 8543.90 as parts of electrical machines. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the classification under Heading 8543.90. The appellants contended that the goods should be classified under Heading 8473.30. The key contention was whether the goods, described as ID Authenticator or Secure ID Authenticator Token, could function independently or only in conjunction with specific software and machines. The appellants argued that the goods required the RSA ACE/Server software and Automatic Data Processing Machines for user authentication. The Tribunal examined the technical literature provided by the appellants, which highlighted the necessity of using the goods in conjunction with the RSA ACE/Server for network access. The Tribunal observed that the impugned item could not operate independently and was specifically designed to work with the RSA ACE/Server for user authentication. Based on this analysis and the specific tariff entry for 'Network Access Controller' under Heading 8473 30 91, the Tribunal concluded that the goods should be classified under Heading 8473.30. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief. This case primarily revolved around the correct classification of imported goods, specifically the 'Network Access Controller.' The dispute centered on whether the goods should be classified under Heading 8473.30 or Heading 8543.90. The appellants argued that the goods were designed to function in conjunction with the RSA ACE/Server software and could not operate independently. They emphasized that the goods required specific software and machines for user authentication, making them suitable for use solely with machines of Heading 84.71. The Tribunal carefully analyzed the technical literature provided by the appellants, which detailed the functionality and usage of the goods in conjunction with the RSA ACE/Server for network access. The Tribunal noted that the goods were specifically intended to work with the RSA ACE/Server and could not perform their function independently. This analysis led the Tribunal to conclude that the classification under Heading 8473.30 was more appropriate, especially considering the specific tariff entry for 'Network Access Controller' under Heading 8473 30 91. As a result, the impugned order was overturned, and the appeal was allowed. The key argument in this case was whether the imported goods, termed as ID Authenticator or Secure ID Authenticator Token, should be classified under Heading 8473.30 or Heading 8543.90. The appellants contended that the goods were specifically designed to operate in conjunction with the RSA ACE/Server software and could not function independently. They highlighted the technical aspects of the goods, emphasizing the need for the RSA ACE/Server and Automatic Data Processing Machines for user authentication. The Tribunal carefully examined the product literature provided by the appellants, which outlined the detailed functionality of the goods in ensuring secure network access. The Tribunal acknowledged that the goods were intricately linked to the RSA ACE/Server for user authentication and could not be used in isolation. Considering this crucial aspect and the specific tariff entry for 'Network Access Controller' under Heading 8473 30 91, the Tribunal concluded that the goods should be classified under Heading 8473.30. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any necessary relief.
|