2018 (6) TMI 485 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported goods - Cogent Lifescan for Finger Print Scanner - whether classifiable under CTH 84716050 eligible for Nil Basic Customs Duty or under CTH 85437099 under residual heading of Electrical Machines and Apparatus having individual functions not specified or included elsewhere in Chapter 84 & 85? Held that - The lower appellate authority has searched the internet merely for Life Scan Finger Print Devices‛ and not the Cogent Lifescan Finger print Scanner and based on the information that popped up, has arrived at a facile conclusion that the finger print scanners are having independent memory and are capable of having functioning of their own. The Tribunal decision in the case of STJ Electronics Pvt. Ltd 2016 (2) TMI 141 - CESTAT NEW DELHI is on all fours will squarely apply to these appeals also, where similar finger printer scanners were held to be classifiable only under CTH 8471. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved: Classification of imported scanners under Customs Tariff Heading 84716050 or 85437099.

Analysis:
1. Facts of the Case: The appellants filed a Bill of Entry for the clearance of Cogent Lifescan for Finger Print Scanner, classifying it under Customs Tariff Heading 84716050 for 'Nil' Basic Customs Duty. However, the department assessed it under CTH 85437099 as 'Electrical Machines and Apparatus having individual functions not specified elsewhere in Chapter 84 & 85. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the assessment, leading to the appeals before the forum.

2. Appellant's Arguments: The appellants argued that the scanners are designed to be used with Automatic Data Processing machines, hence should be classified under CTH 84716050. They contended that the scanners only transmit signals to the ADP machine and cannot function independently. They cited a Tribunal decision in a similar case supporting their classification.

3. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent opposed the appeals, supporting the assessment. They highlighted that the appellants did not provide catalogues or technical write-ups. The Commissioner (Appeals) found through internet searches that the scanners can work independently, classifying them under CTH 85437099.

4. Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the lower appellate authority's internet search was limited to 'Life Scan Finger Print Devices,' not the specific 'Cogent Lifescan Finger print Scanner.' The appellant's submission included the foreign manufacturer's website with relevant catalogues and write-ups. The Tribunal emphasized that the department could have obtained expert opinions or technical details before assessment. Referring to a similar Tribunal decision, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the appeals with consequential relief.

5. Conclusion: The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the importance of accurate information and expert opinions in classification disputes. The decision highlighted the need for thorough examination of technical details before making assessments, ensuring proper classification under the Customs Tariff Headings.