1998 (1) TMI 292 - AT - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported 35 mm Projection Lenses.
2. Eligibility for concessional rate of customs duty under Notification No. 93/86-Cus.
3. Applicability of Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 90 of the Customs Tariff.
4. Previous case law interpretations relevant to the classification and duty applicability.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Imported 35 mm Projection Lenses:
The primary issue was whether the imported 35 mm Projection Lenses should be classified under sub-heading No. 9007.92 as parts for projectors or under sub-heading No. 9002.11 as objective lenses for projectors. The appellants argued that the lenses were additional lenses and not objective lenses, thus should be classified under sub-heading No. 9007.92. However, the respondent contended that the lenses were objective lenses to be placed nearest to the film, thus falling under sub-heading No. 9002.11. The Tribunal concluded that the lenses were indeed objective lenses for projectors, classifiable under sub-heading No. 9002.11, based on the detailed description of the lenses' functionality and placement in the projector.

2. Eligibility for Concessional Rate of Customs Duty under Notification No. 93/86-Cus:
The appellants claimed the benefit of the concessional rate of customs duty under Notification No. 93/86-Cus., which provided exemptions for cinematographic projectors under Heading No. 90.07. However, the Tribunal noted that the benefit was only applicable to parts classified under Heading No. 90.07 and not to parts specifically described under other headings. Since the lenses were classified under sub-heading No. 9002.11, they did not qualify for the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 93/86-Cus.

3. Applicability of Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 90 of the Customs Tariff:
Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 90 stated that parts included in any of the headings of Chapter 90 should be classified in their respective headings, even if suitable for use solely with a particular kind of machine. The Tribunal emphasized that the lenses, being specifically described under Heading No. 90.02, should be classified there, irrespective of their use in projectors. This classification rule ensured that the lenses were classified under sub-heading No. 9002.11 and not as parts under sub-heading No. 9007.92.

4. Previous Case Law Interpretations:
The Tribunal referred to several previous cases to support its decision. In the case of Vishal Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, the lenses were not classified under sub-heading No. 9002.11, as they were not objective lenses for projectors. In Cinecita Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, the goods were classified under sub-heading No. 9002.90, which covered "other" lenses not specifically described under sub-heading No. 9002.11. The Tribunal clarified that the objective lenses for projectors were specifically covered under sub-heading No. 9002.11 and thus, could not be classified under the residuary sub-heading No. 9002.90. In Cinerama Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, the lenses were not described as objective lenses and were classified under sub-heading No. 9002.90. The Tribunal reiterated that the lenses in the present case were objective lenses for projectors, classifiable under sub-heading No. 9002.11.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the imported lenses were objective lenses for projectors, classifiable under sub-heading No. 9002.11. Consequently, they did not qualify for the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 93/86-Cus. The appeal was rejected based on the detailed analysis of the classification rules, Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 90, and relevant case law interpretations.

← Previous Next →