9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Classification of imported hot foil marking machine under Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Heading 84.35 or Heading 84.59(1)
In this case, the issue revolved around the classification of an imported hot foil marking machine under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The dispute arose when the Department classified the machine under Heading 84.59(1) of CTA, 1975, while the importers argued that it should be classified under Heading 84.35. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) ruled in favor of the importers, classifying the machine under Heading 84.35. The appellant, representing the Revenue, contended that the machine should be classified under Heading 84.59(1) as it was a hot foil stamping machine with individual function, not a printing machinery covered under Heading 84.35. The Tribunal analyzed the machine's description and function based on the manufacturer's catalogue, which labeled it as a "hot foil marking machine pneumatically operated." The machine worked on electropneumatic pressure to stamp impressions on plastic components using colored stamping foil. The Tribunal noted that the machine did not function like traditional printing machinery that uses printing ink with blocks, plates, cylinders, and metrices. Referring to a previous case involving a capsule and tablet printing machine, the Tribunal highlighted the distinction between printing machinery and stamping machines. The capsule and tablet printing machine, described as printing machinery in the manufacturer's catalogue, was classified under Heading 84.35 as it utilized the normal printing method with gravure rolls and printing ink. In contrast, the hot foil marking machine was deemed a stamping machine for imparting designs on components using stamping foil, not falling under the category of printing machinery. Based on the analysis, the Tribunal concluded that the imported hot foil marking machine was correctly classifiable under Heading 84.59(1) of CTA, 1975, as a machine with individual function, rather than under Heading 84.35 for printing machinery. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal by the Revenue was allowed.
|
