9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the imported Maccanofilm Programme Computer. 2. Eligibility for concessional assessment under Notification No. 179/80-Cus. 3. Eligibility for clearance under the Open General License (OGL). Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Classification of the Imported Maccanofilm Programme Computer: The appellants claimed that the Maccanofilm Programme Computer should be classified under Heading 84.40(1) as it is an essential component of the Flat Bed Screen Printing Machine. However, the authorities classified it under Heading 84.51/55, arguing that it is an automatic data processing machine. The Chapter Note No. 3 to Chapter 84 was cited, which states that composite machines are to be classified based on their principal function. The authorities argued that the description in Heading 84.51/55 is broad enough to include the imported computer, as it encompasses both digital and analogue machines. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this classification, noting that the computer, even if an integral part of a larger textile machinery, falls under Heading 84.51/55. This was further supported by the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs, Madras v. M/s. Raj Continental Exporters Private Limited, which emphasized that the classification should be based on the goods as imported, not their intended use. 2. Eligibility for Concessional Assessment Under Notification No. 179/80-Cus: Notification No. 179/80-Cus provides a concessional rate of duty for parts required for the initial setting up, assembly, or manufacture of articles falling under specified headings, including 84.40(1). The appellants argued that the imported computer is a part of the Flat Bed Screen Printing Machine and should benefit from this notification. However, the authorities, including the Collector (Appeals), held that since the computer is classified under Heading 84.51/55, it does not qualify for the concessional rate under Notification No. 179/80-Cus. The notification is conditional, requiring the Assistant Collector of Customs to be satisfied that the parts are required for the specified purposes. The Textile Commissioner's certificate alone was deemed insufficient to meet this requirement. The Tribunal upheld this interpretation, emphasizing that the final decision on classification and applicability of exemptions rests with the Customs authorities. 3. Eligibility for Clearance Under the Open General License (OGL): The appellants claimed that the imported computer was eligible for clearance under OGL, as per Appendix 10(1) of AM 1982-83. However, the authorities classified the computer under Entry 508 in Appendix 3, which covers electronic equipment/systems, thus excluding it from OGL eligibility. The Collector (Appeals) noted that the appellants' previous imports of similar goods were cleared under a specific license, not OGL. Despite agreeing with the lower authority that the goods were not eligible for OGL clearance, the Collector (Appeals) remitted the redemption fine, considering the appellants' belief based on past clearances and the delay in issuing the show cause notice. The Tribunal found no substance in the appellants' submissions for OGL eligibility and upheld the authorities' findings. Separate Judgments Delivered: The Vice President dissented, suggesting a remand for de novo consideration, arguing that the main machine's classification under Heading 84.40 should be examined. However, the President concurred with the Member (Judicial), supporting the classification under Heading 84.51/55 and denying the benefits under Notification No. 179/80-Cus and OGL. The final order, based on majority opinion, rejected the appeal. Final Order: In view of the majority opinion, the appeal is rejected.
|
