2017 (7) TMI 377 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported item - Danload 6000 Electronic Preset Metering Equipment parts thereof and configuration software - The proper officer of customs decided to classify the equipment under 9032 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act 1975 while the importer sought classification under 9026 - Held that - The First Schedule appended to the Customs Act lays down general principles for the interpretation and classification of goods for import tariff. Rule 2(b) of the Rules provide that the classification of goods consisting of more than one material or substance shall be according to the principles of rule 3 - the specific rule would supersede the general rule - the classification of the imported goods is in accordance with law and there is no reason for us to interfere in the matter - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Dispute in classification of Danload 6000 Electronic Preset Metering Equipment, parts, and configuration software imported by M/s Advanced Spectra Tek Pvt Ltd under Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Analysis:
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the classification of imported goods under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The equipment in question, Danload 6000 Electronic Preset Metering Equipment, along with its parts and configuration software, was imported by M/s Advanced Spectra Tek Pvt Ltd. The customs officer classified the equipment under heading 9032, while the importer argued for classification under heading 9026. The original authority extensively explained that the imported goods were automatic regulating controlling instruments, not instruments for measuring various parameters.

During the proceedings, the appellant did not appear, and the Learned Authorized Representative relied on a decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Moorco (India) Ltd v. Collector of Customs, Madras [1994 (74) ELT 5 (SC)]. The interpretation rules appended to the Customs Schedule were crucial in determining the classification of goods. Rule 3 of the rules specified the criteria for classifying goods when they could fall under multiple headings. The rule emphasized that the heading providing the most specific description should be preferred over more general descriptions.

In this case, the goods were found to specifically fall under heading 90.24 as a flow meter, which was more specific than the general heading 90.26. The Tribunal erred in classifying the goods under 90.26 instead of 90.24, as the latter was the most specific classification based on the nature of the goods. The Tribunal's application of clause (c) for classification was deemed incorrect since clauses (a) and (b) did not apply due to the specific nature of the goods as flow meters.

Ultimately, the appellate tribunal upheld the classification of the imported goods as per the law, finding no reason to intervene in the matter. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the judgment was pronounced on 12/06/2017.