2018 (5) TMI 1141 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported goods - Projectors - whether classified under CTH 85286100 as Projectors solely or principally used with Automatic Data Processing Machines or under 85286100 as the imported goods have features which are in addition to those which are normally found in goods covered under 85286100? - N/N. 24/2005 Cus. dated 01.03.2005 - Held that - In the case of Casio India Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (12) TMI 379 - CESTAT NEW DELHI the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal has considered the various features of the projectors similar to the ones imported by the appellant. It was held in the case that the specifications of the imported goods are for the projectors which are meant for use as data projectors and not as video projectors; therefore, goods would be covered by the description Projectors of a kind solely or principally used in an automatic data processing system of heading 8471, which is the description of the Customs Tariff Heading 85286100 for which the benefit of Notification No. 24/2005-CUS under its entry No. 17 would be available. We have also considered various other decisions on identical products in which the classification of the goods were ordered to be made under 85286100 as claimed by the appellant - It has further been held that the appellant will be entitled to the benefit of various notifications as far as benefit of basic customs duty is concerned - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported projectors under CTH 85286100, Customs duty exemption under Notification No. 24/2005 Cus. and successor Notifications, Additional features of imported goods, Dispute regarding classification under 85286900, Benefit of exemption notifications claimed by the appellant, Basic Customs duty demand, Competing classifications under Customs Tariff Headings 85286100 and 85286900.

Analysis:
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the classification of imported projectors under CTH 85286100 and the eligibility for customs duty exemption under Notification No. 24/2005 Cus. and successor Notifications. The appellant claimed that the projectors were meant to be used principally with Automatic Data Processing Machines, justifying their classification under 85286100. The Department, however, argued that the goods had additional features beyond those typically found in goods covered under 85286100, leading to classification under 85286900 and denial of the exemption claimed by the appellant, resulting in a demand for basic Customs duty.

During the hearing, the appellant's counsel emphasized that despite additional features, the projectors were primarily intended for use with ADP machines, citing technical specifications such as native resolution, contrast ratio, and aspect ratio to support their argument. The counsel referenced previous Tribunal decisions, including cases involving Acer India Pvt. Ltd. and Casio India Co. Pvt. Ltd., where similar products were classified under 85286100, supporting the appellant's stance.

The Revenue, represented by the DR, contended that since the projectors were not solely designed for use with ADP machines but could be utilized with various other devices, the classification under 85286900 was appropriate. However, after considering both sides and examining the case records, the Tribunal noted that similar goods had been the subject of classification disputes in various cases. Notably, in the case of Casio India Co. Pvt. Ltd., the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal had analyzed similar projector features and upheld the classification under 85286100, granting the benefit of exemption notifications.

The Tribunal further referred to a decision involving Acer India Pvt. Ltd. where it was established that projectors primarily used for data projection with laptops or desktop computers fell under 85286100 and were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 24/2005. The Tribunal emphasized that the principal use of the projectors with ADP systems justified their classification under 85286100, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. Additionally, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had previously accepted the classification of the appellant's imported goods under 85286100 in a separate order.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found the impugned order unsustainable, setting it aside and allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant, based on the classification under CTH 85286100 and the entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 24/2005 Cus. and similar successor Notifications.

Conclusion:
The judgment resolved the classification dispute by upholding the appellant's claim that the imported projectors were primarily intended for use with Automatic Data Processing Machines, leading to their classification under CTH 85286100 and eligibility for customs duty exemption under relevant notifications. The decision was supported by previous Tribunal rulings and technical specifications of the goods, emphasizing their principal use with ADP systems.