2000 (6) TMI 299 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues involved:
Classification of Graphic Design System under Sub-heading 8447.20 of Customs Tariff Act and eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 16/85.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Graphic Design System:
The appeal revolves around the classification of the Graphic Design System imported by M/s. Oswal Knitting & Spinning Industries. The dispute is whether the system should be classified under Sub-heading 8447.20 as claimed by the appellants or be classified based on merit without the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 16/85. The Additional Collector ordered its classification on merit, stating that it cannot be classified with the Jacquard Flat Knitting Machine. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, noting that the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim.

2. Appellant's Arguments:
Ms. Reen Khair, representing the appellants, argued that the Graphic Design System is an essential part of the electronic jacquard flat knitting machine. She emphasized that the system is designed to work in conjunction with the knitting machine, forming a complete function when connected. Referring to relevant legal provisions, she highlighted that the system should be classified under Heading 84.47 as it has no independent existence. She also pointed out that an identical machine was cleared at Delhi Customs without objections, and cited a relevant case in support of their position.

3. Revenue's Arguments:
On the other hand, Shri A.K. Jain, representing the respondent, contended that the Graphic Design System imported by the appellants is a general computer capable of performing multiple functions. He argued that the system should not be classified along with the Jacquard machine. He referenced a previous case to support his argument that separately invoiced items with individual functions cannot be considered accessories of each other.

4. Tribunal's Decision:
After considering the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal analyzed the nature of the Graphic Design System and its relationship with the Jacquard Flat Knitting Machine. Citing a previous case involving a similar dispute, the Tribunal concluded that the Graphic Design System is integral to the functioning of the knitting machine and should be classified under Sub-heading 8447.20. The Tribunal noted that the Department failed to prove that the system could perform various functions independently. Relying on legal provisions and precedents, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal filed by the appellants.

5. Precedents and Legal Interpretation:
The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the interpretation of relevant legal provisions, including Note 4 to Section XVI of the Customs Tariff Act and Explanatory Notes of H.S.N. The Tribunal emphasized that when components contribute to a clearly defined function covered by a specific heading, the entire system should be classified accordingly. By applying the principles established in previous cases, the Tribunal justified its decision to classify the Graphic Design System under Sub-heading 8447.20.

By thoroughly analyzing the arguments presented by both parties, interpreting relevant legal provisions, and considering precedents, the Tribunal resolved the issue of classification of the Graphic Design System in favor of the appellants, highlighting the integral role of the system in conjunction with the Jacquard Flat Knitting Machine.