2017 (10) TMI 714 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported goods - ILP 45 Professional LCG Monitors of Sharp brand - importers classified the goods under CTH 85285100 - The department was of the view that the goods would fall under CTH 85285900 - Whether it is a Computer monitor or a TV/ Video monitor? - Held that - as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for appellant, the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken assistance of the Board Circular, dated 10.09.2007. A Computer chart is furnished in the Circular comparing TV monitor with that of Computer monitor. On a close perusal of this comparison, we do not find any disagreement with the view taken by Commissioner (Appeals) who has held that on the basis of description produced by appellant, the scales favor the classification under Computer monitor (CTH 85285100) rather than TV monitor - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported goods under CTH 85285900 or CTH 85285100.

In the present case, the department entertained doubt regarding the description/classification of the imported goods, which were 445 nos. of ILP 45 Professional LCG Monitors of Sharp brand. The respondent initially classified the goods under CTH 85312000 as indicator panels incorporating LCD or LED, but later contended for classification under CTH 85285100 as monitors used in an ADP system. The department argued that the goods, with a large display panel suitable for advertising purposes and capable of taking various video inputs, should be classified under CTH 85285900, attracting a 10% BCD and CVD on RSP. The original authority classified the goods under CTH 85285900, denying the exemption of BCD claimed by the respondent under CTH 85285100. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order, holding that the goods fell under CTH 85285100 as they resembled a Computer Monitor more than a TV monitor. The department appealed against this decision before the Tribunal.

The department, through the learned Authorised Representative, argued that the goods were predominantly used for advertising media and not solely with ADP machines, citing the various input terminals available on the monitors. The department contended that traditional monitors used with ADP machines would not have such diverse inputs. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel supported the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, referencing Board Circular No.33/07 and a comparative chart provided therein to distinguish between Computer monitors and TV/Video monitors. The counsel argued that the goods should be classified as Computer monitors under CTH 85285100 based on the Circular guidelines, which were binding on the department.

The Tribunal analyzed the dispute to determine whether the imported goods should be classified as a Computer monitor or a TV/Video monitor. The Revenue argued that due to the 45" size of the monitor, it was more suited for TV/Video display in restaurants rather than as a Computer monitor. However, upon reviewing the impugned order and the Board Circular from 2007, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) correctly applied the Circular's guidelines to classify the goods as Computer monitors under CTH 85285100. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner's interpretation of the description provided by the appellant and upheld the classification under CTH 85285100. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the classification of the imported goods as Computer monitors.