1984 (5) TMI 257 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the terms "Computer sub-system" and "Computer peripheral units" are synonymous.
2. Whether the imported goods (Floppy Disk Drive, Line Printers, Magnetic Tape Drive, Dot Matrix Printers, Digital Tape Transport) qualify for duty concession under Notification Nos. 272-Cus., dated 2-8-1976, 47-Cus., dated 1-3-1979, and 115-Cus., dated 19-6-1980.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Synonymity of "Computer sub-system" and "Computer peripheral units":
The primary issue in these appeals is whether the terms "Computer sub-system" and "Computer peripheral units" used in different notifications are synonymous. The appellants argued that these terms are interchangeable and that the goods they imported fall within the scope of these terms. They relied on clarifications from the Department of Electronics and various authoritative sources, including the Ministry of Finance, which stated that "Computer sub-system" means "Computer peripheral units." The Tribunal accepted this interpretation, noting that the respondent did not dispute this claim and had, in fact, issued orders in other cases affirming this interpretation.

2. Eligibility for Duty Concession:
The appeals concern the eligibility of various imported items for duty concession under three specific notifications. The appellants had claimed duty concessions for Floppy Disk Drives, Line Printers, Magnetic Tape Drives, Dot Matrix Printers, and Digital Tape Transport under Notification Nos. 272-Cus., 47-Cus., and 115-Cus. The Appellate Collector of Customs had previously rejected these claims, stating that the items did not qualify as "Computer sub-systems" or "Computer peripheral units."

Detailed Analysis for Each Notification:

Notification No. 272-Cus., dated 2-8-1976:
This notification exempted Computers and Computer Systems from a portion of the customs duty. The appellants argued that their imported goods fell under this notification. However, the Appellate Collector initially held that the goods could not be considered as sub-systems or peripherals of computers, thus denying the concession.

Notification No. 47-Cus., dated 1-3-1979:
This notification, which superseded the previous one, also provided exemptions for Computer and Computer Sub-systems. The appellants claimed benefits under this notification as well. The Appellate Collector again rejected their claims, stating that the items were ancillary equipment and not part of the central processor unit.

Notification No. 115-Cus., dated 19-6-1980:
This notification used the term "Computer peripheral units" instead of "Computer sub-systems." The appellants argued that this change in terminology did not alter the scope of the items covered. The Tribunal accepted this argument, noting that the Department of Electronics had clarified that the terms were synonymous.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the items in question (Floppy Disk Drives and Digital Tape Transport) had already been deemed Computer sub-systems and peripherals in previous decisions. For the remaining items, the Tribunal accepted the respondent's concession that the terms "sub-system" and "peripheral" were intended to convey the same meaning. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders under appeal and granted the appellants the benefit of the duty concessions under the relevant notifications.

Result:
The appeals were allowed with consequential relief to the appellants, granting them the duty concessions under Notification Nos. 272-Cus., 47-Cus., and 115-Cus.