2019 (1) TMI 1684 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported goods - multi functional copiers - restricted goods or not - Revenue is of the view that these imports cannot be classified as multi-functional copiers but have to be considered as photocopiers as it would include multi-functional copiers and since these were second hand photocopiers they are liable for duty under Tariff Heading No. 84433930 while the claim of the appellant is that these goods would fall under 84433100 - whether the impugned goods classifed under CTH 84433930 or under CTH 84433100? - Period prior to 05.06.2012. HELD THAT - Prior to 05.06.2012 photocopiers (second hand) were restricted items and required license to import, while there was no such restriction for multi-functional copiers - This finding is recorded by the Bench in the appellant s own case M/S. SRI SAI GRAPHICS, M/S. VISHWAKNA ENTERPRISES, M/S. KATKE DIGITAL PRINTERS VERSUS CC, HYDERABAD 2016 (7) TMI 542 - CESTAT HYDERABAD wherein, the Bench recorded why this view is taken, holding that in view the fact that the Chartered Engineer Certificate has certified that the goods imported are not e-waste, we hold that goods, in question, were not restricted for import and as such no import licence was required for their import Impugned order not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported goods as photocopiers or multi-functional copiers; applicability of duty under Tariff Heading No. 84433930 or 84433100; previous Tribunal's decision on similar issue.

In the present case, the appellant imported multi-functional copiers but revenue authorities classified them as photocopiers, subjecting them to duty under Tariff Heading No. 84433930 due to being second hand photocopiers. The appellant argued for classification under 84433100. The Tribunal analyzed whether, prior to 05.06.2012, multi-functional copiers could be classified as photocopiers and if any restrictions applied. Referring to a previous Final Order, the Tribunal noted that second-hand photocopiers were restricted pre-2012, requiring a license, while multi-functional copiers faced no such restriction. The Tribunal upheld the appellant's contention, setting aside the impugned order based on the previous Bench's decision and the absence of valuation contestation.

The key debate revolved around whether the imported goods should be categorized as photocopiers or multi-functional copiers for duty classification. The Tribunal examined the historical context pre-2012 to determine the applicability of restrictions on second-hand photocopiers versus multi-functional copiers. Relying on a prior decision and the lack of valuation dispute, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's goods fell under the multi-functional copiers category, warranting a different duty tariff under 84433100 instead of 84433930. The judgment emphasized consistency with past rulings and factual considerations to support the appellant's position.

The appellant's plea for classification under a different tariff heading was upheld by the Tribunal, highlighting the distinction between photocopiers and multi-functional copiers based on historical import restrictions. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the impugned order rested on the absence of import restrictions for multi-functional copiers pre-2012, aligning with the appellant's argument and a prior Tribunal decision. The judgment underscored the importance of factual analysis and adherence to precedent in resolving classification disputes, ultimately favoring the appellant's classification under 84433100 and allowing the appeal on the contested grounds.