9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Classification of imported machines under Heading 84.59(1) or 84.59(2), Mis-declaration under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Detailed Analysis: Classification of Imported Machines: The appeal involved a dispute regarding the classification of imported machines for the manufacture of Audio Cassettes under Heading 84.59(1) or 84.59(2) of the Tariff. The Collector of Customs had classified the machines under Heading 84.59(1) as general-purpose screw driving machines, leading to confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalties. The appellants contended that the machines should be classified under Heading 84.59(2) as they were specifically designed for production. The appellants supported their argument with technical literature provided by the supplier, describing the machines as innovative Screw Driving Machines for cassette production. The Machinery Expert/Appraiser confirmed that the machines were indeed designed for cassette production, capable of screwing specific places in the cassette housing. The appellants also referenced the CCCN-page 1333 to support their classification claim under Heading 84.45/48 for machines similar to nailing or assembling. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and evidence presented, concluded that the machines were appropriately classifiable under Heading 84.59(2) as designed for production, overturning the Collector's classification under Heading 84.59(1). Mis-declaration Allegation: The mis-declaration allegation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, was based on the discrepancy between the description of the imported machines as Automatic Compression Revetters with Quick Return Mechanism and the actual nature of the machines as screw driving machines. The Collector had initially raised concerns about mis-declaration, but subsequent clarifications from the Directorate General of Technical Development (DGTD) confirmed that the machines could be imported under specific policy provisions. The appellants argued that the machines were correctly declared based on the supplier's description and technical literature, which clearly outlined the machines' function in cassette production. The Tribunal noted that the machines were indeed suitable for manufacturing Audio Cassettes, as supported by the technical literature, and found no valid basis for the mis-declaration allegation. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Collector's order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment primarily addressed the proper classification of the imported machines under the Tariff, emphasizing their specific design for cassette production over general-purpose use. Additionally, the Tribunal dismissed the mis-declaration allegation, highlighting the adequacy of the supplier's description and technical literature in accurately representing the machines' intended function.
|
