1997 (12) TMI 232 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Classification of 35 mm camera system and accessories imported as part of a microscope.

In this case, the appellant, M/s. Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd. (GSFC), imported a Triocular Research Microscope with a Planchromatic Phase Contrast 35 mm camera system. The dispute arose regarding the classification of the 35 mm camera system and accessories. The appellants argued for classification under sub-heading No. 9011.20 as other microscopes for photomicrography, cinephotomicrography, or microprojection. However, the Department classified the microscope part under sub-heading 9011.20, the 35 mm camera system under sub-heading 9066.59, and the CCTV system under sub-heading 8528.10. The matter was initially adjudicated by the Asstt. Collector of Customs, Cargo Complex Sahar, Bombay, and later confirmed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.

The appellant's representative argued that the camera and television set were integral parts of the microscope, citing the HSN explanatory note and relevant invoices. They contended that the camera was specifically designed for viewing micro-organisms through the microscope. They also relied on previous case law to support their classification argument.

On the other hand, the Respondent's representative referred to the Rules of Interpretation and Chapter notes, asserting that the camera and television set were distinct from the microscope based on the Tariff descriptions and invoices. They highlighted that the camera was not part of the microscope according to the HSN explanatory notes and detailed findings by the Appellate Authority.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal examined the origin of the imported goods, technical specifications, and product literature. They noted that the camera and television set were not permanently incorporated into the microscope and were separately listed in the invoice with distinct origins and prices. The Tribunal referenced the Chapter notes under Chapter 90 of the Tariff and concluded that the camera and television set were to be classified separately based on their specific Tariff headings, not as integral parts of the microscope.

The Tribunal emphasized that the camera and television set were not essential components of the microscope but additional accessories used for specific purposes like documentation and group discussions in research settings. They distinguished this case from precedents involving essential components and upheld the Collector of Customs (Appeals) classification decision. Consequently, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the previous ruling and rejected the appeal, affirming the classification of the 35 mm camera system and accessories separately from the microscope.