9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Classification of imported goods under specific tariff headings and applicability of exemption notification.
The appeal was filed by the Collector of Customs against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) allowing the respondents' appeal and setting aside the Assistant Collector's order regarding the classification of imported goods. The dispute revolved around whether the goods, described as copier parts - rear cover, should be classified under Heading 84.79 or sub-heading 9806.00. The Assistant Collector classified the goods under 9806.00, denying exemption under Notification 69/87, while the Collector (Appeals) classified them under 84.79, granting exemption. The main contention was whether the goods, as parts of a Semi-Automatic Document Handler (SADH), should be considered accessories to a photocopying machine and classified accordingly under Heading 90.09 or under Heading 84.79 as machinery with individual function. The respondents argued that the SADH had an independent function and should be classified under 84.79. The Collector (Appeals) agreed with this view, relying on the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) under Heading 84.79. The appellant, however, contended that the goods should be classified under 90.09, not eligible for exemption under Notification 69/87. The appellant argued that the goods should be classified under Heading 90.09 as parts and accessories of photo-copying apparatus, not under 84.79. The appellant emphasized that the goods were specifically covered by Heading 90.09, and the Collector (Appeals) erred in classifying them under 84.79. The appellant also highlighted the HSN Explanatory Notes under Heading 84.79, indicating that the heading is restricted to machinery with individual function not covered elsewhere. The appellant maintained that the SADH functioned as an integral part of a photocopying machine and should not be eligible for exemption under Notification 69/87 due to its classification under 90.09. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the SADH had individual functions distinct from the photocopying machine and should be classified under Heading 84.79. They referenced the literature of the SADH, highlighting its features that enable stream feeding of originals into the photo-copier independently. The respondents contended that the goods should be classified under 84.79, supported by Chapter Note 2(a) to Chapter 90. They also cited a clarification from the U.K. Customs, classifying the SADH under Heading 84.59, as machines with individual functions. The respondents emphasized that the goods did not play an integral part in the operation of the photocopying machine, warranting classification under 84.79. After considering the arguments from both parties, the Tribunal analyzed the classification of the goods under Heading 84.79 and sub-heading 9009.90. The Tribunal applied Rule 3(a) of the Interpretative Rules to the Tariff, determining that sub-heading 9009.90 provided the most specific description for the goods imported, being parts and accessories of photo-copying apparatus. The Tribunal also referred to Chapter Note 2(a) to Chapter 90, supporting the classification under Heading 90.09. The Tribunal concluded that the goods should be classified under Heading 90.09, not eligible for exemption under Notification 69/87, setting aside the Collector (Appeals) order and allowing the appeal filed by the Collector of Customs.
|
