2012 (6) TMI 283 - AT - Customs

Classification - Indicating panel 4 zone with LCD, CTEC indicating panel with LCD I Loop Apollo Protocol (Non-expandable), Indicating panel with LCD Repeater - these have been classified by the authorities as fire alarm under Heading 8531 10 20 applying Interpretative Rule 2 Held that - no recourse can be taken to Interpretative Rule 2 when there is a specific entry in the Tariff according to which any goods can be classified applying Interpretative Rule 1 itself. Heading 8531 20 00 comes under the broad category of electric sound or visual signaling apparatus as specified against the main heading 8531 itself. Appeal allowed Classification - Ionization Smoke Detector - appellants have claimed classification under Heading 9027 80 10 Held that - process of ionization itself is based on principle of radiation and that radiation has to be naturally among one of the alpha, beta or gamma rays. The product is described by the appellant in their pamphlet as a smoke alarm and not as an instrument or apparatus for smoke analysis. Hence based on the exclusion notes given in Chapter notes to Chapter 85.31 and specific notes appended to Chapter 90.22, the above said goods will be squarely covered under CTH 90.22.90. ionized smoke detectors are appropriately classifiable under heading 9022 90 and not under Heading 9027 80 10 as claimed by the appellants

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported items - Indicating panels with LCD, Ionization Smoke Detector

In the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai, the dispute revolved around the classification of imported items, specifically indicating panels with LCD and an ionization smoke detector. The appellants contested the classification made by the lower authorities and argued for a different categorization under specific tariff headings.

Classification of Indicating Panels with LCD:
The appellants imported indicating panels with LCD and disputed the classification made by the authorities under Heading 8531 10 20 as fire alarms. The appellants contended that these items should be classified under Heading 8531 20 00, which specifically covers "indicator panels incorporating liquid crystal devices (LCD) or light emitting diodes (LED)." The tribunal agreed with the appellants' arguments, noting that the items fell under the broader category of electric sound or visual signaling apparatus specified under Heading 8531. Therefore, the appeal of the appellants regarding the classification of indicating panels with LCD was allowed.

Classification of Ionization Smoke Detector:
Regarding the ionization smoke detector imported by the appellants, the lower appellate authority classified it under Heading 9022 90 instead of the claimed Heading 9027 80 10. The lower authority based its decision on the operational principles of the ionization smoke detector, which involved radiation and the presence of Americannum, a radioactive substance. The tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authority, emphasizing that the exclusion notes in the tariff supported the classification under Heading 9022 90. The tribunal rejected the appeal of the appellants concerning the classification of the ionization smoke detector.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai, allowed Appeal No. C/274/2004 and partly allowed Appeal Nos. CI179/2005 and C/595/2005 based on the classification of the imported items as indicating panels with LCD and an ionization smoke detector, respectively. The judgment highlighted the importance of specific tariff headings and exclusion notes in determining the appropriate classification of imported goods.