2020 (3) TMI 323 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported goods - Scodix S 75 Digital Inkjet Printer - whether classified under CTH 8443 32 50 or under CTH 84433910 of CTA - main contention of the department that the goods cannot be described as Inkjet printer and cannot be classified under 84433250 is that it cannot be connected to an automatic data processing machine or net work - HELD THAT - The catalogue of the goods furnished by the appellant along with the appeal in page 34 states that the item can be connected to net work by LAN TCP/ IP Cat. 5E and that cable is to be supplied by the customer. The term connectable to an ADP Machine or to a net work for the purpose of sub headings 8443.31 and 8443.32 has been explained in the Explanatory notes. The Board s Circular No.11/2008-Cus., dt. 1.7.2008 has also clarified the same. It is stated in the circular that large format printers which satisfy the conditions of connectability as given in HSN Explanatory Notes are to be classified under tariff heading 84433250 as Inkjet Printers . So the conclusion arrived by the authorities below that the goods are not Digital Inkjet Printers or that the goods are not capable of being connected to ADP or net work and therefore is not classifiable under 84433250 is against the clarification given by the Board. After examining the HSN Explanatory Notes and the Boar s circular, it is held that goods are correctly classifiable under CTH 84433250. The order passed reclassifying 84433910 is erroneous and requires to be set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 84433250 or 84433910

In this case, the main issue revolves around the correct classification of the imported goods, specifically the "Scodix S 75 Digital Inkjet Printer," under the Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 84433250 or 84433910. The appellant claimed classification under CTH 84433250 with nil Basic Customs Duty, while the department argued for classification under CTH 84433910. The dispute arose as the department reassessed the Bill of Entry and upheld the classification under 84433910, which the appellant contested through an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:

The appellant's argument centered on the classification under CTH 84433250 as an "Inkjet Printer" with nil Basic Customs Duty. The appellant cited the HSN Notes under Chapter 8443 and Board's circular to support their claim. They also referred to the World Customs Organization's opinion classifying similar printers under 844332. Additionally, they highlighted a previous case where similar goods were classified under 84433250 by the Commissioner (Appeals), reinforcing their stance on the classification.

On the other hand, the department contended that the goods were Digital Inkjet Press, not Inkjet Printers, and should be classified under CTH 84433910 as Inkjet Machines. They argued that the goods did not meet the criteria of connecting to an automatic data processing machine or network, as required by headings 84433250 and 84433910. The department emphasized that the goods mentioned as Digital Inkjet Press in the invoice could not be considered as Inkjet Printers.

During the hearing, both sides presented their arguments, and the Tribunal examined the descriptions and competing entries provided. The Tribunal noted that the goods could be connected to a network by LAN TCP/IP Cat. 5E, as specified in the catalogue submitted by the appellant. The Tribunal referred to the Explanatory Notes and Board's circular, concluding that the goods satisfied the conditions of connectability for classification under 84433250 as Inkjet Printers.

Moreover, the Tribunal referenced a previous order by the Commissioner (Appeals) in a similar case, where goods were classified under 84433290 based on the revised HSN Notes. Considering the discussions, HSN Explanatory Notes, Board's circular, and the previous order, the Tribunal held that the goods were correctly classifiable under CTH 84433250. Consequently, the order reclassifying under 84433910 was deemed erroneous and set aside, with the appeal allowed in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis of the classification criteria, supported by legal references and precedents, led to the decision in favor of the appellant, highlighting the importance of accurate classification under the Customs Tariff Heading for imported goods.