9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Act - SH 8443.60 or SH 9010.49, appeal for reassessment under SH 8442.30, refund of excise duty, use of scanner and processor in printing industry vs. photographic or cinematographic industries. Analysis: The appellants imported a scanner and a processor, claiming classification under SH 8443.60, but the assessing authority classified them under SH 9010.49. The appellants appealed for reassessment under SH 8442.30 and refund of excise duty, arguing the goods were for the printing industry, not photographic or cinematographic industries. The appellate authority found the goods were meant for photographic laboratories and classified them under SH 9010.50. In the appeal, the appellants claimed the scanner and processor were designed for the printing industry, not photographic or cinematographic industries, but failed to provide evidence to support this. They argued Heading 84.42 was more specific for the goods used exclusively in printing industry, while Heading 90.10 was generic. However, they did not substantiate their claim regarding the use of the imported items. The impugned order detailed the operational aspects of the scanner and processor as presented by the appellants, confirming their use in capturing hues of artwork, separating print colors, and facilitating colorful end products in printing. The order highlighted that Heading 84.42 pertains to machinery for type-founding or type-setting, while Heading 90.10 covers apparatus for photographic laboratories. The nature of operations described by the appellants indicated the goods were for photographic laboratories, not printing industry, contradicting the appellants' claim. Despite notice, the appellants did not appear for representation or request an adjournment. The tribunal, based on the reasons recorded, upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal, concluding that the imported goods were appropriately classified under SH 9010.50 for use in photographic laboratories.
|
