9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Classification of imported goods as removable or exchangeable under CTH 8471 70 30 or 8471 70 20, reliance on expert opinion, consideration of technical aspects, granting of stay based on exemption notification.
Classification Issue: The Department contended that the imported hard disc drives were removable or exchangeable under CTH 8471 70 30, while the appellant classified them under 8471 70 20 for non-removable drives. The original adjudicating authority based its decision on visual inspection, concluding the goods were removable/exchangeable. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) delved into technicalities, noting the goods were not removable or exchangeable. The Commissioner relied on IBM's expert opinion. The Tribunal found the original authority lacked expert advice and deciding solely based on visual inspection was inadequate. In contrast, the Commissioner considered the nature of goods, relevant circulars, and Tribunal decisions, leading to the dismissal of the Department's stay application. Expert Opinion: The Commissioner (Appeals) considered technical aspects, including the circular issued by the Board and Tribunal decisions, before concluding the hard disc drives were not removable or exchangeable. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of expert opinion in such matters and criticized the original authority for not seeking expert advice before making a decision based on visual inspection. Exemption Notification: The Tribunal noted that the exemption notification covered goods classifiable under CTH 8471 70, including hard disc drives. As the notification was at a six-digit level, both removable/exchangeable and non-removable drives fell under the exemption. However, neither lower authority addressed this aspect. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the stay application, as no sufficient case was presented for granting a stay based on the exemption notification.
|
