2018 (4) TMI 1345 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported goods - HP Photo Center Microlab Printer - whether classified under 9010 5000 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act or under 8443 3250 of CTA? - Held that - reliance placed in Collector of Customs v. Business Forms Limited 2002 (1) TMI 68 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , where it was held that the HSN Explanatory Notes are entitled to far greater consideration than the Tribunal has given there - the Revenue appeal of classification under Chapter 9010 cannot be upheld - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported ink jet printer under Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellant, M/s Hewlett Packard India Sales (P) Ltd, appealed against the order-in-appeal no. 28/Mumbai – III/2009 dated 13th February 2009 of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai – II. The dispute revolved around the classification of an ink jet printer imported under bill of entry no. 460316/18.02.2008. The original authority relied on note (1)(m) of section XVI to exclude articles of chapter 90, while the appellant argued for classification under 8443 3250 or 9010 5000.
2. The first appellate authority rejected the appellant's claim based on the interpretation of headings along with relative section/chapter notes. The authority emphasized the need to consider both terms of headings and section notes simultaneously, leading to an iterative classification process. The appellant's reliance on Tribunal decisions and circulars was dismissed.
3. The appellant contended that the imported item, an ink jet printer, falls under 8443 3250. However, the section note clarified that chapter 90 covers different categories of instruments and apparatus, excluding those under section XVI, which pertains to machinery, electrical equipment, etc.
4. The explanatory notes in chapter 8443 specifically describe printers with various working mechanisms, including ink-jet printers. These printers create images using drops of ink on a print medium, distinguishing them from other types of printers. The classification adopted by the adjudicating authority was based on the features and functions of printers used in photographical laboratories.
5. The appellant cited relevant decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Tribunal to support their classification claim. These decisions emphasized the importance of HSN Explanatory Notes in determining classification and resolving conflicts between different interpretations.
6. The Learned Authorised Representative argued that the classification adopted by the adjudicating authority aligns with the provisions of interpretation and headings, indicating the correctness of the classification.
7. Referring to previous Tribunal decisions, the appellant's classification claim was supported, highlighting the significance of considering the functions and features of the imported ink jet printer. The Tribunal's decision favored the appellant's classification under 9010 5000, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

This detailed analysis provides an overview of the classification dispute regarding the imported ink jet printer under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, highlighting the arguments presented by the appellant, the authorities, and the supporting legal precedents.