2022 (6) TMI 320 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported goods - inkjet printer as claimed by appellant, or ink-jet printing machine as re-assessed by the assessing authorities - HELD THAT - The two tariff items though under the same heading part ways at the next level of classification with that of the appellant coming within other printers, copying machine and facsimile machines, whether or not combined corresponding to stand-alone printers capable of connecting to an automatic data processing machine or a network which the tariff item preferred by customs authorities does not require. The argument of Learned Authorised Representative that the product literature shows the incorporation of computer within it to fulfil the same condition does not really pass muster with us because the capacity to be connected to automatic data processing machine or network is not the same as fitment of internal controls system for the operation of the machinery. The two description differ on capability of external connection implying that it is a printer with possibility of varied input. It is in the light of this that the Central Board of Excise and Customs was compelled to issue clarification referred to in the decision of the Tribunal in M/S. MONOTECH SYSTEMS LIMITED VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIR) 2020 (3) TMI 323 - CESTAT CHENNAI . In view of the classification of the same product by the Tribunal in a dispute of the very same importer, the classification adopted by the original authorities and sustained in the impugned order does not survive - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported goods against tariff item 8443 3910 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the order-in-appeal upholding the classification of imported goods under tariff item 8443 3910 by the Commissioner of Customs. The appellant, M/s Monotech System Ltd., declared the goods as 'digital inkjet printer SCODIX S75 Part No. SCO-130' for clearance at a nil rate of duty under tariff item 8443 3250. The assessing authority revised the classification, imposing duty liability. The appellant cited a previous Tribunal decision and a circular by the Central Board of Excise and Customs to support their classification. The Authorized Representative argued against the binding precedent of the previous Tribunal decision.

The Tribunal examined the goods' description and the criteria for classification under sub-headings 8443.31 and 8443.32, emphasizing the capability of connection to an automatic data processing machine or network. Referring to the HSN Explanatory Notes and the Board's circular, the Tribunal concluded that the goods were correctly classifiable under CTH 8443 32 50, not 8443 39 10. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief as per law.

The Tribunal found the previous Tribunal decision to be a binding precedent, rejecting the argument against its tenability. The distinction between 'inkjet printer' claimed by the appellant and 'ink-jet printing machine' assessed by customs authorities was crucial. The appellant's printer fell under 'other printers' capable of connecting to an automatic data processing machine or network, unlike the authorities' classification. The capacity for external connection, not internal controls, determined the classification. The Central Board of Excise and Customs' clarification supported the appellant's position. Based on the previous Tribunal's classification of the same product, the original authorities' classification was deemed incorrect, leading to the appeal's success.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis of the goods' description, classification criteria, and previous decisions led to the setting aside of the impugned order and the allowance of the appeal, emphasizing the importance of external connection capability in determining classification under the Customs Tariff Act.