2000 (9) TMI 92 - AT - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Correct Tariff classification of the imported goods "Master Maker 153/168".
2. Applicability of Heading No. 90.10 vs. Heading No. 84.34 for the classification.
3. Consideration of the principle of photography in determining the classification.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Correct Tariff Classification of the Imported Goods "Master Maker 153/168":
The primary issue in this case was the correct Tariff classification of the "Master Maker 153/168" imported by the appellants. The Revenue classified the item under CTH 90.10, while the assessees argued for classification under CTH 84.35, later switching to CTH 84.34. The Tribunal had to decide based on the intended use of the goods rather than its technique of working.

2. Applicability of Heading No. 90.10 vs. Heading No. 84.34 for the Classification:
The appellants imported the goods from the U.S.A. and paid duty under Heading No. 90.10 but later claimed a refund, arguing for classification under Heading No. 84.35, with a subsequent switch to 84.34. The lower authorities and the Collector (Appeals) rejected the refund claim, classifying the goods under Heading No. 90.10. The Tribunal examined previous decisions and the Supreme Court's judgments in similar cases to determine the correct classification.

3. Consideration of the Principle of Photography in Determining the Classification:
The Tribunal noted that the key to resolving the classification dispute lay in the Apex Court's judgments. In the case of Delhi Press Samachar Patrika, the Supreme Court ruled that a plate processor without an exposure unit working on the principle of photography would be excluded from Heading No. 90.10. Conversely, in Kumudam Publications, the Supreme Court classified printing plates under Heading 84.34, considering their end use in the printing industry.

Analysis and Findings:

Technical Literature and Submissions:
The Tribunal reviewed the technical literature and submissions from both sides. The Revenue argued that the "Master Maker" was a completely automatic machine and should be classified under Heading No. 90.10. The appellants contended that the machine used reprography, not photography, and should be classified under Heading No. 84.34.

Supreme Court Decisions:
The Tribunal relied heavily on the Supreme Court's decisions. In Delhi Press Samachar Patrika, the Supreme Court ruled out Heading No. 90.10 for a plate processor without an exposure unit working on photographic principles. In Kumudam Publications, the Court classified printing plates under Heading No. 84.34, considering their end use.

Examination of the Machine:
The Tribunal examined the foreign supplier's invoice and specifications, which described the machine as consisting of a plate-making unit and a converter/dryer unit. The machine incorporated a camera with a lens and quartz iodine lamps, indicating the use of photographic principles. The Tribunal found that the machine's provision for exposure to ultraviolet radiation was enough evidence of the principle of photography being used.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the "Master Maker" involved the principle of photography and should be classified under Heading No. 90.10, not 84.34. The Tribunal rejected the appellants' claim and upheld the lower appellate authority's classification under Heading No. 90.10, following the reasoning in the case of Delhi Press Samachar Patrika.

Final Judgment:
The "Master Maker" is classifiable under Heading No. 90.10 of the Tariff, and the appeal was rejected. The Tribunal emphasized that the involvement of photographic principles was the decisive factor in the classification, not the end-use considerations or trade parlance test.

← Previous Next →