9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Classification of Glass Level Measuring and Control System under Tariff Heading 90.28(1) or 90.28(4). Detailed Analysis: The dispute in this case revolves around the classification of a Glass Level Measuring and Control System imported by the appellants, consisting of equipment from two different parties. The equipment from M/s. Courser Inc. detects variations in glass level and converts them into electrical signals, which are then fed to the recorder controller imported from M/s. Accutrol Inc. USA to control the raw material feed rate to the furnace, making up the complete system. The Assistant Collector initially classified the second part of the equipment, namely the Circular Chart Recording Controller, under Heading 90.28(1), while the appellants argued that it should be classified under 90.28(4) as it operates on an electrical phenomenon for measuring physical qualities like temperature levels. The Collector and Assistant Collector relied on Note 2 of Chapter 90, stating that parts suitable for use with machines are to be classified accordingly. The appellants contended that since the Circular Chart recorder operates on an electrical phenomenon to record and control physical parameters, it should be classified under 90.28(4) as per Note 5(b) of Chapter 90, which applies to instruments operating based on electrical phenomena. The manufacturer's catalogue described the recorder as designed for accurate measurement and recording of variables translated into voltage or resistance signals. The appellate tribunal agreed with the appellants, noting that while the Circular Chart recorder is a part of the glass level measuring system, its operation based on electrical phenomena aligns with Note 5(b) of Chapter 90, warranting classification under 90.28(4). Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the lower authorities' classification was set aside. In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the classification of the Glass Level Measuring and Control System under Tariff Heading 90.28(1) or 90.28(4) based on the operation of the equipment on an electrical phenomenon for measuring physical parameters, ultimately leading to the decision in favor of the appellants.
|
