2019 (6) TMI 1207 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported goods - Computer with CPU, ICB, Mouse Monitor - whether classified under CTH 84713010 or otherwise? - HELD THAT - The imported goods are definitely in category of portable computers. We do not find any support to the contentions raised by the appellant from the technical literature put forth by them. Neither in the entire literature referred to by the appellants it is brought out that the portable computers are only limited to laptops and notebooks. Appellants have in their appeal memo agreed with the order of the Commissioner (Appeal) to the extent of rejecting the classification claimed by them in Bill of Entry under CTH 8471 50 00. Appellants have in their appeal memo claimed alternate classification under CTH 8471 49 00 - As per the above referred sub heading note, for the item to classified as a system, the items should be segregated as at least a central processing unit, one input unit and one output unit. It is admitted position by the appellants that in their case CPU and Output Unit (Visual Display Unit) are integrated into one - there are no merits in the said submission of the appellants. Since the imported goods satisfy all the terms and conditions for classification under heading 847130, there are no fault/ error in the classification as determined by the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported goods under the correct Customs Tariff Heading (CTH).
2. Determination of whether the imported goods qualify as "portable automatic data processing machines."
3. Entitlement to refund based on the classification and duty charged.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Imported Goods:
The appellant filed Bill of Entry No. 721441 dated 15.10.2009 for clearance of computers with CPU, ICB, Mouse, and Monitor, claiming classification under CTH 84715000. The Department classified the goods under CTH 84713010, which the appellant contested. The Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the classification under CTH 84713010. The appeal to CESTAT was based on the argument that the goods should be classified under CTH 84715000 or alternatively under CTH 84714900.

2. Determination of "Portable Automatic Data Processing Machines":
The appellant argued that the imported goods do not contain an in-built physical input keyboard or mouse and are not portable. They claimed that the goods are desktop computers with only the CPU and display integrated, and thus do not fit the definition of "portable automatic data processing machines" under heading 84713010. The Department, supported by technical literature and examination reports, argued that the goods are portable, weigh less than 10 kg, and have a central processing unit, virtual keyboard, and display unit, fitting the criteria for classification under heading 84713010.

3. Entitlement to Refund:
The appellant claimed that similar goods were allowed clearance by other customs formations based on transaction value, and thus they are entitled to a refund. However, the classification under CTH 84713010 was upheld, negating the basis for the refund claim.

Judgment Analysis:

Classification under CTH 84713010:
The tribunal considered the technical literature and examination reports, which indicated that the imported goods are portable, weigh less than 10 kg, and have an integrated CPU, virtual keyboard, and display unit. The term "portable" was interpreted broadly to include computers that can be easily relocated, not limited to laptops or notebooks. The tribunal upheld the classification under CTH 84713010, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments for classification under CTH 84715000 or CTH 84714900.

Definition of Portable Computers:
The tribunal referred to various sources defining "portable computers" as those designed to be easily transported and relocated, including larger transportable computers used in industrial environments. The tribunal concluded that the imported goods fit this definition, even without an in-built battery, as they can be easily moved from one place to another.

Rejection of Alternative Classification:
The tribunal rejected the appellant's alternative classification under CTH 84714900, noting that the goods do not meet the criteria for being classified as a "system" under Sub Heading Note 2 to Chapter 84, which requires the units to be segregated into at least a central processing unit, one input unit, and one output unit.

Conclusion:
The tribunal upheld the impugned order classifying the imported goods under CTH 84713010 and dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the classification determined by the adjudicating and appellate authorities. The appellant's claims for alternative classification and refund were rejected.

Order Pronounced:
The order was pronounced in the open court on 24.06.2019, upholding the classification under CTH 84713010 and dismissing the appeal.

← Previous Next →