Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2000 (9) TMI 145

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... issioner's decision. Hence the present appeal by the assessees. 2.We have examined the records of the case and heard both sides. 3.We note that the authorities below preferred to classify the goods under CTH 9009.21 by following Rule 3(c) of the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI). Both the lower authorities concurrently found that the imported item had printing, scanning, fax and copying functions incorporated in it. They, however, found none of these functions to be predominant over the others and, therefore, rejected the assessees' contention that the item was principally and essentially a printer. The lower appellate authority also did not accept as applicable the case law cited by the party, which was the decision of the Tribuna .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ons, ld. Counsel submitted, the machine was essentially and principally a printer and it required to be classified under CTH 8471.60 as an input-output unit of ADP machine. He relied, in this connection, on Chapter Note 7 to Chapter 84 of the Customs Tariff as well as Note 5(D) read with Note 5(B)(b) (c) to the said Chapter. Ld. Advocate also relied on the relevant HSN Explanatory Notes. Counsel also relied on two expert opinions on classification of similar products, given by US authorities. One of these opinions was rendered by the Director, National Commodity Specialist Division, in respect of a machine described as "Xerox Document Work Centre Pro 535" and the same was given in letter dated 26-9-1996, copy of which is available on reco .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he laser printing components of the product. It was categorically opined that although the device was capable of use as a digital photocopier, its principal use appeared to be as an output printer for ADP machines. On this basis, it was advised that the applicable sub-heading for the product under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States would be 8471.60.6100. Ld. Counsel pointed out that Legal Note 7 of Section XVI of the HTS of the United States was pari materia with Chapter Note 7 to Chapter 84 of the Indian Customs Tariff and that the above expert opinions, based on the aforesaid Legal Note 7 would be applicable to the impugned goods in the instant case, in which the appellants relied on Chapter Note 7 ibid and contended that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ejecting the present appeal and upholding the classification under 9009.21 as decided by the authorities below. 6.We have carefully considered the rival submissions. We note that it is an undisputed fact that the impugned machine had the functional features of a printer, scanner, fax, copier etc. Both the lower authorities have concurred in this respect. Ld. DR has also admitted that the machine is connectable to ADP machines (computers). He has, thus, virtually conceded the position that the imported machine could be used as an output unit for computers, though he has contended that the item was not 'dedicated' as printer for computer. On an examination of CTH 84.71, we find that this Tariff heading nowhere requires a machine to be a 'de .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the data furnished in the catalogue has not been disputed by ld. DR. It is not in dispute that the functional features of the impugned machine are similar to those of the machines considered by the US authorities. The US experts' opinion has also not been contested. The description of the machine and its functions as submitted by the appellants' Counsel has also not been materially controverted. We are inclined to accept the evidence of the catalogue coupled with the submissions of the appellants, in holding that the essential and principal function of the imported machine was its printing function, and therefore, by virtue of Note 7 to Chapter 84 of the Tariff, the machine could only be classified under CTH 8471.60. We would also take .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates