2013 (8) TMI 271 - AT - Customs

Classification of goods VIVITEK Projectors - assessee classified the goods under CTH and CETH 85286100 claiming the benefit of exemption under Sr. No. 17 of the Customs Notification NO. 24/2005 whether the goods were having additional features which make them not classifiable under 85286100 contention of the revenue is that, The goods are capable of effective use without being attached to a automatic data processing machine as CTH 85286100 claimed by the respondent are available only for those projectors which are meant for use solely or principally in automatic data processing machine of heading 8471. In these circumstances, these projectors with multiple uses are appropriately classifiable under CTH 85286900. Held that - The projection system cannot be used in isolation but replaces the functionality of a monitor - the projectors merely having additional function cannot be a ground for classifying it other than 85286100 - they cannot be said to be meant for use solely or principally in an automatic data processing system of heading 8471 court relied upon COMMR. OF CUS. & C. EX., HYDERABAD-II Versus AVECO VISCOMM PRIVATE LTD. (2010 (9) TMI 436 - CESTAT, BANGALORE) and CELETRONIX INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI (2006 (12) TMI 38 - CESTAT,CHENNAI) decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues: Revenue appeal against dropping of proceedings initiated against the respondent regarding the classification of imported projectors under Customs Notification NO. 24/2005.

In this case, the revenue filed an appeal against the Order-in-Original where the Commissioner dropped the proceedings initiated against the respondent regarding the classification of imported projectors under Customs Notification NO. 24/2005. The revenue contended that the projectors, apart from having VGA, DVI, and USB ports, also had additional ports like composite Video Port, S-Video Port, HDMI, RCA Audio Stereo, which indicated they were not solely or principally meant for use in an automatic data processing system of heading 8471. The revenue argued that projectors with multiple uses should be classified under a different category (CTH 85286900) instead of the one claimed by the respondent (CTH 85286100). The revenue criticized the reliance on the opinion of the Additional Director, Dept. of Technology, stating that it was not binding for customs classification. The respondent, on the other hand, supported the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that the projectors were primarily used in automatic data processing systems and the additional features did not disqualify them from classification under CTH 85286100. They argued that the projectors were integral parts of computer systems and should be classified accordingly. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and records, concluding that the projectors, despite having additional features, were indeed used in automatic data processing systems of heading 8471. The Tribunal highlighted that the projectors combined computing power with large screen display and were essential for the functionality of a monitor. Referring to previous cases, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, dismissing the appeal as lacking merit.

In summary, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to drop the proceedings against the respondent regarding the classification of imported projectors under Customs Notification NO. 24/2005. The Tribunal found that the projectors, despite having additional features, were primarily used in automatic data processing systems and integral to computer systems, justifying their classification under CTH 85286100. The Tribunal rejected the revenue's arguments against the classification and dismissed the appeal for lacking merit.