1981 (9) TMI 277 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Classification of the imported computer system under the correct Tariff Item.
2. Determination of whether the computer system qualifies as a "machine" or an "electrical apparatus."
3. Validity of the customs duty assessment and subsequent refund claim.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Classification of the Imported Computer System Under the Correct Tariff Item

The petitioners, a company running Tata Consultancy Services, were granted an Import Licence for a B. 1728 Computer System, classified under Item No. 65 of Part V of the Import Trade Control Schedule. Upon importation, the Customs authorities classified the computer system under Tariff Item No. 73, assessing a duty of Rs. 29,50,994.69. The petitioners contested this classification, arguing that the computer system should be classified under Item No. 72(b) of the Tariff, which would result in a lower duty of Rs. 17,77,881.42. They filed for a refund of the excess duty paid, amounting to Rs. 11,73,112.87.

Issue 2: Determination of Whether the Computer System Qualifies as a "Machine" or an "Electrical Apparatus"

The Assistant Collector of Customs and the Appellate Collector of Customs both held that the computer system was an electrical appliance, not a machine, and thus correctly classified under Item No. 73. The petitioners argued that the computer system, consisting of various units like the Central Processing Unit, Tape drives, Disk Cartridges, Card Reader, and Printer, should be considered an integrated machine. They cited judicial decisions and trade practices recognizing computers as machines. The court examined definitions and classifications from various sources, including the Machinery Committee Report (1922), judicial precedents, and trade encyclopedias, concluding that the computer system indeed qualifies as a machine.

Issue 3: Validity of the Customs Duty Assessment and Subsequent Refund Claim

The court found the reasons given by the customs authorities for classifying the computer system as an electrical appliance to be erroneous. The authorities' reliance on the 1922 Machinery Committee Report and the lack of recognition of the computer's industrial applications were deemed outdated and incorrect. The court noted that computers are widely used in industrial operations and produce specific, valuable results, thus fitting the definition of a machine. Judicial decisions, including those from the Bombay High Court and the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, consistently recognized computers as machines. The court also referenced the Customs Department's previous treatment of computers as machines under various tariff entries.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the computer system imported by the petitioners should be classified under Item No. 72(b) of the Tariff as a machine, not under Item No. 73 as an electrical apparatus. The customs authorities were directed to refund the excess duty of Rs. 11,73,112.87 paid by the petitioners within six weeks. The petitioners were also awarded the costs of the petition.