2006 (12) TMI 38 - AT - Customs

Classification As per the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals) the Classification of CMC the appellant product under CH 85283020 of the Schedule to CTA/CETA as Video Projector but appellant not agree with it Original authority after considering all facts matter decided in favour of appellant

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of "Compact Media Centre" (CMC) or "K-Yan Computer Systems" under the Customs Tariff Act/Central Excise Tariff Act.
2. Application of Interpretative Rules for classification.
3. Consideration of technical opinions and expert certifications.
4. Determination of the principal function of the equipment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of "Compact Media Centre" (CMC) or "K-Yan Computer Systems" under the Customs Tariff Act/Central Excise Tariff Act:
The primary issue was whether the "Compact Media Centre" (CMC) or "K-Yan Computer Systems" should be classified under Chapter Heading 85283020 as a 'video projector' or under Chapter Sub Heading (CSH) 84714191 as a 'computer system'. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had upheld the classification of the item as a video projector under CTH 8528, while the appellants argued it should be classified as a computer system under CSH 84714191.

2. Application of Interpretative Rules for classification:
The lower appellate authority applied Rule 3(c) of the General Interpretative Rules, which states that when goods are classifiable under two or more headings, the heading which occurs last in numerical order among those which equally merit consideration is to be preferred. The Commissioner found the item to be equally classifiable as a computer and a video projector, thus resorting to Rule 3(c) and classifying it under CTH 8528.

3. Consideration of technical opinions and expert certifications:
The appellants submitted technical write-ups, a statement from a Professor of IIT, Mumbai, and a letter from the Additional Director, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, certifying that the product combined the computing power of a computer with a large screen display provided by an in-built projection system. They argued that the projector was an output device that could not function independently and was integral to the computer system.

4. Determination of the principal function of the equipment:
The lower authorities acknowledged the multifarious functions of the equipment, including computing, video projection, playing DVDs/VCDs/Audio CDs, and internet access. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted the equipment's versatility due to its computing capabilities but found it challenging to identify the principal function. He concluded that the item merited classification equally under both headings 8471 and 8528, leading to the application of Rule 3(c).

Final Judgment:
The Tribunal found that the equipment was essentially a computer with an integrated data projector, which served as an output device replacing a conventional monitor. The Tribunal emphasized that the projector's presence did not alter the classification of the machine as a computer. The Tribunal also considered the technical opinions and certifications provided by experts, which supported the classification of the item as a computer. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the subject equipment should be classified under CSH 84714191 as claimed by the appellants and not as a projector under CTH 8528. The appeal was allowed, and the item was classified as a computer.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the equipment's functions, technical expert opinions, and the application of the General Interpretative Rules. The Tribunal determined that the "Compact Media Centre" (CMC) or "K-Yan Computer Systems" should be classified as a computer system under CSH 84714191, thereby allowing the appeal.

← Previous Next →