9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Classification of Risograph machine under sub-heading 8443.50 or 8472.90 of the Customs Tariff Act. Analysis: The main issue in this appeal was the classification of the Risograph machine under the Customs Tariff Act. The appellant, M/s. HCL Ltd., contended that the Risograph should be classified under sub-heading 8443.50 as a printing machine, while the Commissioner (Appeals) had classified it under sub-heading 8472.90 as a duplicating machine. The appellant's representative argued that the machine should be considered a printing machine based on the Explanatory Notes of HSN, which stated that machines under Heading 84.43 cover special machines like small office printing machines, which are mistakenly referred to as duplicating machines due to their appearance and operating principles. The appellant also provided certificates from various government organizations stating that they used the Risograph for printing purposes. On the other hand, the Senior Department Representative argued that the Tribunal had already considered similar aspects in the case of Pioneer International, where it was established that the machine was a printing machine based on letters from government organizations. The Tribunal, in its decision, noted that the issue of classifying the Risograph had been settled in the case of Pioneer International. After reviewing the Explanatory Notes of HSN and the Operational Panel, the Tribunal concluded that the Risograph could not be classified as offset printing machinery under sub-heading 84.43 and upheld the previous classification decision. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the appellants. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the classification of the Risograph machine as a duplicating machine under sub-heading 8472.90 of the Customs Tariff Act, based on the previous decision in the case of Pioneer International and the interpretation of the Explanatory Notes of HSN. The certificates provided by the appellants were not sufficient to change the classification, as the Tribunal found no reason to differ from its earlier decision.
|
