2020 (9) TMI 951 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported goods - split air-conditioners - classified at sub-heading no. 841510 of First Schedule Customs Tariff Act, 1975 at serial no. 49 or not - benefit of N/N. 85/2004-Cus dated 31st August 2004 denied - HELD THAT - From heading no. 8415 of First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, it is seen that air conditioning machines comprise of a motor driven fan and elements for controlling humidity and temperature. Generally, and more particularly in the retail segment, such machines are either of window or self-contained or split system types. There are several other equipment which are designed for larger spaces and for applications that go beyond residential or commercial. In the structuring of the sub-headings, emphasis is placed on the split system and, by default, the window types. All other air-conditioning equipment are relegated to the residuary categorization and it is within such that split air-conditioners finds deployment. From this, it can be inferred that split system air conditioning machines and split air-conditioners are distinct. Neither has the show cause notice nor the adjudicating authority forayed an elaboration of either; that these existed at the eight digit level under different sub-headings did not appear to have impressed itself, let alone the need for appreciating the distinction on the adjudicating authority - The additional feature, whose presence or absence, determines the sub-heading within the residuary category, has not been established as incorporated in the impugned goods. In the absence of such, customs authorities are not enabled to proceed to the tariff item below the sub-heading. The impugned order is flawed for that reason. The classification declared by the appellant at the time of import corresponds to the description of split system and the scope of split system is elaborated in the subheading notes in the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonised System of Nomenclature. From this, it can be inferred that the description corresponding to sub-heading 841510 is intended for window and split system air-conditioning machines - Undoubtedly, every article under heading no. 8415 has to have a cooling facility. Nevertheless, the adjudicating authority set out with the assumption that, irrespective of the cooling equipment in split systems , the cooling system in the impugned goods was a refrigerant unit. Neither is there any ground for such supposition in the show cause notice nor is there reason to conclude that the cooling source in the split system was absent in the impugned goods and substituted by another. There is no descriptive restriction in sub-heading no. 841510 to conclude that heating capability is not intended for coverage by that tariff entry. The impugned order has failed to exclude applicability of description of split systems to the impugned goods which would have entailed some knowledge of what that is. Split systems are air conditioners that have two parts and these operate together to cool space. Likewise, it may heat space also without compromising conformity with the description corresponding to heading no. 84151010 of the First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. It is only by exclusion from this description that the impugned order could have attempted an alternative classification. The General Rules of Interpretation, with emphasis on hierarchical elimination of non-conformity, precluded classification of the impugned goods under the general residuary description when conformity with the specific is not established as incorrect - the impugned goods are classifiable under tariff item no. 84151010 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Revised classification of imported 'split air-conditioners'
2. Denial of exemption from basic customs duty
3. Recovery of differential duty and imposition of penalty
4. Evaluation of classification under Customs Tariff Act, 1975

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Revised Classification of Imported 'Split Air-Conditioners':
The customs authorities re-determined the classification of the imported split air-conditioners under sub-heading no. 841581 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. This reclassification led to the imposition of a higher duty rate. The appellant, M/s Daikin Air-conditioning India Ltd, contested this reclassification, arguing that the correct classification should be under sub-heading no. 841510, which corresponds to split air-conditioners designed to be fixed to a window, wall, ceiling, or floor, self-contained or "split-system."

2. Denial of Exemption from Basic Customs Duty:
The appellant was denied the exemption from basic customs duty available under notification no. 85/2004-Cus dated 31st August 2004 for goods classified under sub-heading no. 841510. The customs authorities' reclassification of the goods under sub-heading no. 841581 resulted in the denial of this exemption.

3. Recovery of Differential Duty and Imposition of Penalty:
The impugned order directed the recovery of ?3,46,64,737 as differential duty under section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, and imposed a penalty of an equivalent amount under section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. This recovery and penalty were based on the revised classification and the consequent denial of the duty exemption.

4. Evaluation of Classification under Customs Tariff Act, 1975:
The tribunal examined the classification hierarchy and the rules for interpretation of the tariff schedule. It emphasized that the classification exercise should not be undertaken with the objective of revenue maximization but to ensure uniformity and the most appropriate rate of duty for assessment. The tribunal noted that the customs authorities must justify the discard of the claimed classification and the applicability of the proposed classification.

Detailed Analysis:

Revised Classification:
The tribunal highlighted that the customs authorities must assume the onus of justifying the discard of the claimed classification and of justifying the applicability of the proposed classification. The tribunal observed that the impugned order did not undertake a proper examination of the imported goods or catalogues pertaining to those goods. The technical exposition by the adjudicating authority did not appear to have been sourced from the show cause notice, and there was no record attributing authenticity and expertise to the technical details used for determination.

Denial of Exemption:
The tribunal noted that the proceedings initiated by the customs authorities aimed to deny the entitlement to the exemption notification. The tribunal emphasized that the classification should be determined according to the terms of the sub-headings and the General Rules for the Interpretation of Import Tariff. The tribunal found that the customs authorities had not properly excluded the applicability of the description of 'split systems' to the impugned goods.

Recovery and Penalty:
The tribunal observed that the adjudicating authority's conclusion was inherently self-contradictory and did not comply with the General Rules for Interpretation and the Additional Notes. The tribunal found that the adjudicating authority had committed itself to a course of action that was entirely at variance with the requirement that comparison should be undertaken at similar levels.

Evaluation of Classification:
The tribunal emphasized that the classification declared by the appellant at the time of import corresponded to the description of 'split system' and the scope of 'split system' is elaborated in the subheading notes in the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonised System of Nomenclature. The tribunal concluded that the impugned goods are classifiable under tariff item no. 84151010 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal.

Conclusion:
The tribunal allowed the appeal, concluding that the impugned goods are classifiable under tariff item no. 84151010, and set aside the impugned order. The tribunal emphasized the importance of proper classification and the need to follow the General Rules for Interpretation of Import Tariff. The order pronounced in the open court on 11/09/2020.