Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (4) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2019 (4) TMI 86 - AT - Customs


Issues: Classification of imported product under Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Presence of transmission facility in the imported product - Consideration of evidence produced by the appellant - Relevance of SAC's opinion and test certificate - Interpretation of relevant entries under Chapter Heading 85.25 and 85.28.

Classification of Imported Product: The appeal was filed against the demand of Customs duty due to the reclassification of the product declared by the importer. The appellant argued that the matter was remanded for the production of fresh evidence, specifically from VJTI and DOE, which was not submitted. The product was described as a digital set-top box with a built-in modulator for transmission function, as confirmed by a test certificate from the Electronics and Quality Development Centre of the Government of Gujarat.

Relevance of SAC's Opinion: The Tribunal initially relied on the opinion of the Commissioner's conference, classifying the product as a reception apparatus for television under CTH 8528.12. The revised opinion of SAC was dismissed on the basis that it relied on the importer's data sheet. However, the Tribunal found that the data sheet is a crucial piece of evidence and should not have been disregarded. The SAC's clarification was supported by the test report from the Electronics and Quality Development Centre.

Interpretation of Relevant Entries: The Tribunal referred to the decision in the case of Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd. and analyzed the classification under Chapter Heading 85.25 and 85.28. It was noted that the product in question had both transmitting and reception functions, leading to its classification under 8525.20. The dominant function of the product, which includes both receiving and transmitting signals, was crucial in determining its classification.

Conclusion: The rejection of the SAC's second opinion solely based on the data sheet was deemed incorrect. The data sheet is a substantial piece of evidence, and the product inherently functions by receiving and transmitting signals. The test certificate and reports further supported the presence of transmission and reception apparatus in the set-top box. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed based on the evidence presented and the interpretation of relevant classification entries.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates