2002 (11) TMI 134 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported machines under Customs Tariff Act - sub-heading 8471.60 or 8479.89.

Analysis:
1. Classification Dispute: The appeal questioned the classification of machines imported by M/s. Xerox Modicorp. Ltd. as printers, scanners, and copiers under sub-heading 8471.60 or 8479.89 of the Customs Tariff Act.

2. Appellant's Arguments: The appellant's advocate argued that the machines were primarily printers for use with Automatic Data Processing Machines, citing specific models like Xerox Regal 5799, Xerox Work Centre XD 100, and Xerox Work Centre XD 155 df. They emphasized the connectivity features and printing functions of the machines, claiming classification under sub-heading 8471.60 based on the predominance of printing functions.

3. Legal Precedents: The advocate relied on previous decisions involving similar machines, such as Xerox Document Work Centre 365c and Xerox Document Centre DCS 230 ST, classified under sub-heading 8471.60. They argued that multi-function machines should be classified under Heading 84.71 as input-output units, supported by relevant legal notes.

4. Revenue's Counter: The Revenue contended that the machines could function independently without an Automatic Data Processing Machine, citing Note 5E to Chapter 84. They argued that the machines performed various functions beyond printing, making printing not the predominant function in a multi-function device.

5. Judgment Analysis: The Tribunal examined the machines' catalog descriptions and functionalities to determine their classification. They found that the machines were not solely or principally used in an automatic data processing system, as required by Note 5(B) to Chapter 84 for classification under sub-heading 8471.60. The Tribunal distinguished previous cases cited by the appellant based on different models and functions, upholding the classification under sub-heading 8479.89 as confirmed in the impugned order.

6. Conclusion: The Tribunal rejected the appeal and upheld the classification of the imported machines under sub-heading 8479.89, emphasizing that the machines did not meet the criteria for classification under sub-heading 8471.60 due to their multi-functionality and lack of sole or principal use in an automatic data processing system.