2011 (10) TMI 350 - AT - Customs

Classification - 3D Mouse Emulation under heading CTH 84716060 OR CTH 84799090 - Held That - Heading 84716060 specifically mentions mouse - merely because the said mouse is bigger in size and costlier than the ordinary mouse and also performs other specific functions the same cannot be held to be a device other than the mouse. Thus classified under CTH 84716060.

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 84716060 or CTH 84799090.

In this case, the issue revolves around the classification of imported goods, specifically a 3D Mouse Emulation Model, under the Customs Tariff Headings (CTH) 84716060 or 84799090. The importer claimed the goods under CTH 84716060, while the assessing authority classified them under CTH 84799090. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) set aside the assessment order and classified the goods under CTH 84716060, considering them as a type of mouse attached to computers.

The Commissioner (Appeals) based the classification on the grounds that all types of mice attached to computers are covered under CTH 84716060. The Commissioner noted that the imported goods, 3D Mouse Model SI-E, were classified under CTH 84716060, but the assessment was done under CTH 84799090 by the Assistant Commissioner. The Commissioner analyzed the relevant chapter headings and concluded that the goods in dispute merit classification under CTH 84716060, which led to allowing the appellant's appeal.

On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the device in question, despite being termed a 'mouse,' was specifically developed for mapping functions beyond the capabilities of a normal computer mouse. The goods were significantly larger and costlier than standard computer mice, capable of performing 32 functions. The Revenue argued that the equipment should be classified under CTH 8479, as it performs a specific function other than data processing and works in conjunction with an automatic data processing machine. They referred to the explanatory notes of Chapter 84 to support their argument.

Upon reviewing the submissions from both sides, the Appellate Tribunal found that the goods in question, described as the 'stealth 3D mouse for two-handed operation,' were essentially a standard computer mouse designed by mapping and ergonomic design professionals. Despite being larger, costlier, and capable of additional functions, the Tribunal concluded that the device still falls under the category of a mouse as specified in CTH 84716060. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeal and affirming the classification of the goods under CTH 84716060 as appropriate.