1997 (1) TMI 207 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported goods under CTH 90.23 as simulators and suitability for other use

Classification under CTH 90.23:
The case involved the classification of imported Traub TX-8D CNC Control System as simulators under CTH 90.23. The appellants contended that the goods were specifically designed for demonstration and training purposes, claiming them to be unsuitable for any other use under CTH 90.23. However, the Asstt. Collector and Collector (Appeals) argued that the goods could also function as CNC systems, challenging the appellants' classification.

Argument for Appellants:
The appellants' advocate highlighted the difference between a control panel and a simulator, emphasizing that certain essential parts required for a control panel were absent in the simulator as they were unnecessary for simulation purposes. The advocate argued that the goods should be assessed based on their presentation upon importation, rejecting the notion that with modifications, the goods could be used as control panels.

Argument for Respondent:
The Departmental Representative (DR) contended that for classification under Heading 90.23, the simulators must not be suitable for any other use. Since the imported goods could be modified to function as CNC Control Panels, the DR argued that Heading 85.37, which covers control panels, should not be excluded.

Judgment and Analysis:
Upon reviewing the Asstt. Collector's order, it was acknowledged that the imported goods could simulate the normal operation of machine tools, providing hands-on training without actual workpiece operations. The Tribunal noted the absence of essential parts like Controller, servomotor, and feedback units in the simulator, as they were unnecessary due to the simulation nature. The appellants demonstrated the fundamental differences between the simulator and a CNC system, emphasizing operational distinctions such as the functionality of push buttons and light emitting diodes.

Decision on Suitability for Other Use:
The Tribunal determined that the goods, as imported, were not suitable for other purposes due to the significant variances between the simulator and a control panel. The absence of essential parts and the operational disparities confirmed that the simulator, in its imported form, did not align with the requirements of being unsuitable for other use under Heading 90.23.

Conclusion:
Conclusively, the Tribunal set aside the previous order and allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellants based on the goods' classification under CTH 90.23 as simulators unsuitable for other use.