2007 (7) TMI 52 - AT - Customs

Classification Appellants contended that the apparatus imported by the respondent is classifiable under SH 9022.19 but as per respondent it classifiable under SH 9027.30/9027.80 Held that appellant claim contention was correct and allowed

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the imported apparatus under the appropriate sub-heading of the Customs Tariff Act (CTA).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of the Imported Apparatus:

The primary issue in this case is the classification of the apparatus imported by the respondents, described as RIGAKU AUTOMATED SEQUENTIAL X-RAY SPECTROMETER. The appellant (Department) claims it should be classified under Sub-Heading (SH) 9022.19, while the respondents (assessee) argue for classification under SH 9027.30/9027.80. This matter was remanded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for reconsideration, emphasizing the need to review the manufacturer's literature and the integral computer and software components of the spectrometer.

Relevant Tariff Headings:

- Heading 90.22: Covers apparatus based on the use of X-rays or other radiations, including for medical, surgical, dental, or veterinary uses.
- Heading 90.27: Covers instruments and apparatus for physical or chemical analysis, such as spectrometers using optical radiations (UV, Visible, IR).

Manufacturer's Literature:

The manufacturer's catalogue describes the spectrometer as capable of a wide range of analytical applications, including automated qualitative analysis and high-sensitive analysis from elements Fluorine (F) to Uranium (U). It uses X-rays to induce secondary X-rays for qualitative and quantitative analysis, incorporating a computer for automatic data processing.

Arguments by the Respondents:

The respondents argue that the apparatus fits the description under Heading 90.27 for instruments and apparatus for physical or chemical analysis. They acknowledge that the spectrometer uses X-rays, not UV, visible, or IR radiations, and thus claim classification under the residual SH 9027.80. They assert that the specific description under Heading 90.27 should take precedence over the general description under Heading 90.22, citing Rule 3(a) of the General Rules for Interpretation of the CTA Schedule and relevant Section and Chapter Notes.

Arguments by the Appellant:

The appellant relies on the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) Explanatory Notes, which indicate that X-ray spectrometry equipment used for examining crystalline structure and chemical composition falls under Heading 90.22. The appellant also points out that X-ray apparatus is specifically excluded from Heading 90.27 as per the HSN Notes.

Tribunal's Consideration:

The Tribunal acknowledges that the spectrometer is based on the use of X-rays and is used for analytical purposes. Heading 90.22 includes apparatus based on X-rays for various uses, with SH 9022.19 covering those for non-medical, surgical, dental, or veterinary uses. The Tribunal also notes that Heading 90.27 includes spectrometers using optical radiations but excludes those based on X-rays.

HSN Explanatory Notes:

The Tribunal refers to HSN Explanatory Notes, which clarify that X-ray spectrometry equipment falls under Heading 90.22. The Supreme Court's rulings in similar cases emphasize resolving classification disputes with reference to HSN unless explicitly indicated otherwise by the CTA.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concludes that the X-ray spectrometer, being based on the use of X-rays and used for analytical purposes, is appropriately classifiable under Heading 90.22 and SH 9022.19. The incorporation of a computer in the spectrometer does not alter this classification. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside, and the appeal is allowed, affirming the classification under SH 9022.19 as claimed by the appellant.