1998 (4) TMI 309 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Classification of Video Display Keyboards imported by the appellant firm under Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Analysis:
The dispute revolved around the classification of Video Display Keyboards imported by the appellant firm along with a Photo-composing Machine. The Department claimed classification under Sub-Heading 8471.99 as Computer Peripherals, while the appellant firm classified them under Heading 8442.10, seeking exemption under Notification Nos. 49/79-Cus. and 89/88-Cus.

The appellant firm contended that the Keyboards were integral to the Photo-composing Machine, functioning in harmony with it for input and editing of copies. They argued that the Keyboard could not function independently and was used solely in conjunction with the Photo-composing Machine. They provided evidence from foreign suppliers and certificates from industry players to support their claim.

On the other hand, the Department argued that the Keyboards were Off-Line Equipment, not directly communicating with the Central Processing Unit of a computer. They referred to a Tribunal decision in a similar case to support their stance that the Keyboards should be classified under Heading 84.71 as Computer Peripherals.

After considering both sides' submissions, the Tribunal found that the Video Display Keyboards were not Automatic Data Processing Machines but were primarily meant for storing, displaying, and editing copy for the Photo-composing Machine. The Tribunal disagreed with the Department's classification under Heading 84.71 and set aside the impugned Order, allowing the appeal filed by the appellants.

In a separate assenting opinion, it was noted that the Keyboard, though a stand-alone off-line terminal, was synchronized to function with the Photo-composing Machine. Given that similar Keyboards had been previously released under a different classification, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and extended the same benefits to the remaining Keyboard in question.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant firm, rejecting the Department's classification under Heading 84.71 and allowing the appeal with consequential reliefs.