2023 (8) TMI 417 - AT - Customs

Classification of goods - Eye One Basic Pro EOBAS (spectrophotometer) Equipment for use in ceramic industry - Twin vision scanner spectral dedicated for color management for digital printing support - Analyzer mastersizer (for use in ceramic industry). Spectrophotometer - HELD THAT - From the function of the Spectrophotometer described in the Chartered Engineer certificate, it is seen that the same is used to exactly measure property of colors. It is common knowledge that the radiation imitated by the Colors is in the optical range and therefore the objection raised by the revenue that Commissioner (Appeals) should have first verified if the instrument analyses optical radiation is totally misplaced. The appeal filed by the revenue on this ground is dismissed. Twin vision scanner - appellant had sought to classify this item under Heading 84716050 but revenue has sought classification under Heading 84439990 - HELD THAT - Chartered Engineer has clearly stated these goods measure the intensity of the color distribution at different wave lengthy for every measured point. It is not in dispute that this data is obtained in digital form. As the equipment converts color data into digital data. The very function of converting color data to digital data in itself is a data processing function. In this background, there are no merit in the appeal filed by the revenue on the ground that no processing is done by the machine. The appeal filed by revenue on this count is rejected. Analyser Mastersizer - HELD THAT - The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that this machine essentially measures the size of the particles but redundantly gives analysis report of the size of the particle along with the percentage data . He argued that there is no analysis happening and therefore he has held that the goods are not classification under Heading 9027. The belief of Commissioner (Appeals) that the data analysis of particles size is a redundant process is without any basis - there are no merit in the argument of the Commissioner (Appeals) also because his observations contradict Chartered Engineer certificate without any ground. Thus, the order of Commissioner (Appeals) on this count is set aside and cross objections of respondents are allowed. The appeal filed by revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
The classification of imported goods under different headings as sought by the appellant and applied for assessment, the modification of classification by the original Adjudicating Authority, the appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) by the Revenue, and the cross objections filed by the respondents.

Classification of Goods - Item No. 1:
The respondents imported "Eye One Basic Pro EOBAS (spectrophotometer) Equipment for use in ceramic industry" and sought classification under heading 90279090, which was modified by the assessing officer. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the classification sought by the respondents based on a Chartered Engineer certificate, describing the equipment as quality control/testing equipment. The Tribunal upheld this classification, dismissing the revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the equipment falls under heading 90273020 for spectrophotometers using optical radiations.

Classification of Goods - Item No. 2:
Regarding the "Twin vision scanner spectral dedicated for color management for digital printing support," the appellant sought classification under heading 84716050, while the revenue argued for heading 84439990. The Chartered Engineer described the goods as measuring/testing equipment for quality control. The Commissioner (Appeals) classified the goods under heading 84716050, emphasizing their nature as scanners. The Tribunal rejected the revenue's appeal, noting that the goods perform a data processing function by converting color data into digital data, thus falling under heading 84716050.

Classification of Goods - Item No. 3:
The "Ink Tester (for use in ceramic industry)" was classified under heading 90248090 by the respondents, which was challenged by the revenue. The Chartered Engineer described the product as measuring equipment for quality control. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered the goods under headings 9027 and 9031, ultimately holding that they do not classify under heading 9027. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, allowing the cross objections of the respondents.

Classification of Goods - Item No. 4:
The "Analyzer mastersizer (for use in ceramic industry)" was described by the Chartered Engineer as measuring equipment for particle size analysis. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered headings 9027 and 9031 for classification, concluding that the goods do not fall under heading 9027 due to a perceived redundancy in data analysis. The Tribunal disagreed with this assessment, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) decision and allowing the cross objections of the respondents.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal and disposed of the cross objections filed by the respondents, maintaining the classification decisions for items 1, 2, and 3 while overturning the decision for item 4. The judgment was pronounced on 07.08.2023 by the Tribunal.