2017 (11) TMI 973 - AT - Customs

Classification of goods - Computer Parts Input-Output Unit EOV DIGITIZER - Revenue claims classification under CTH 9022 19 00 whereas appellant claims it to be under CTH 8471 41 90? - Held that - specific entry relied upon by Revenue demonstrates the nature and character of the goods to attract it to the category it serve purposes of that entry - Although end-user is not the criteria for classification, but the very character and nature of goods when subscribe to a specific entry, that prevails over a general entry for classification. Therefore the classification sought by Revenue under CTH 9022 is appropriate - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Act, 1975

Analysis:

Issue 1: Classification of goods under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 8471 41 90
The appellant argued that the imported goods, a digitizer, should be classified under CTH 8471 41 90 as it serves the purpose of an automatic data processing machine. The appellant relied on the description in the Bill of Entry and technical details to support this classification.

Issue 2: Classification of goods under Chapter 84 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975
The appellant further supported their argument by referring to the Harmonized System Nomenclature (HSN) descriptions in sections XVII and XVI, stating that the goods should be classified under Chapter 84 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which deals with data processing machines.

Issue 3: Revenue's contention for classification under CTH 9022 19 00
The Revenue contended that the imported goods should be classified under CTH 9022 19 00 as digitalized x-ray equipment based on the technical literature and purpose of the goods. They argued that the goods serve the purpose of displaying digitalized x-rays, falling under the specific entry of CTH 9022.

Issue 4: Determination of classification based on the nature and purpose of the goods
The Tribunal analyzed both parties' submissions and emphasized that the specific entry relied upon by the Revenue accurately reflected the nature and purpose of the goods, leading to their classification under CTH 9022. The Tribunal highlighted that the character and nature of the goods, rather than the end-user, are crucial for classification, and in this case, the specific entry prevailed over a general one.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Revenue's classification of the imported goods under CTH 9022 based on their nature and purpose as digitalized x-ray equipment. The judgment underscores the significance of specific entry descriptions in determining the classification of goods under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.