2001 (12) TMI 476 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Scanner Classification as Photographic Equipment

SAFIRE CINE PRIOGRAPH Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI

The Tribunal upheld the classification of the Chromograph scanner CP345T under Chapter Heading 9006.10, rejecting the appellant's claim for classification ... Classifiaction Issues Involved:1. Classification of Chromograph scanner CP345T under chapter sub-heading 8443.60 or 9006.10.2. Applicability of Tribunal's judgment in the case of Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. v. CC.3. Relevance of technical literature and principles of photography in classification.4. Arguments presented by the appellant and the respondent.5. Examination of prior judgments and their applicability.Detailed Analysis:1. Classification of Chromograph Scanner CP345T:The appellant claimed classification of the Chromograph scanner CP345T under chapter sub-heading 8443.60 as a machine ancillary to printing. The authorities, however, found that the equipment employs photographic principles and functions as both a scanner and a film developer. The Tribunal's judgment in Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. v. CC classified a similar item under Chapter Heading 9006.10, rejecting classification under Chapter 84.43.2. Applicability of Tribunal's Judgment in Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. v. CC:The Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner both referred to the Tribunal's judgment in Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, which classified a similar scanner under Chapter Heading 9006.10. The items were found to be identical except for minor technical specifications. The Tribunal's judgment was applied, leading to the rejection of the appellant's claim for classification under 84.43.3. Relevance of Technical Literature and Principles of Photography:The technical literature and catalogue indicated that the Chromograph scanner CP345T employs photographic principles. The process involves scanning the picture, separating colors, and using laser light to form dots on the film, which is then developed, fixed, washed, and used to create printing plates. The use of photographic principles, including the use of film, was a key factor in the classification decision.4. Arguments Presented by the Appellant and the Respondent:- Appellant's Argument: The appellant argued that the scanner should be classified under Chapter Heading 8543 as it works as ancillary to printing. They cited the judgment in State Haryana v. CC, arguing that the intended function of the item should determine its classification.- Respondent's Argument: The respondent pointed out that the item employs photographic principles and is identical to the product in Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. They cited prior judgments, including Scan Electronics v. CC and Metal Box Ltd. v. UOI, supporting classification under Chapter Heading 90.10.5. Examination of Prior Judgments and Their Applicability:The Tribunal referenced several prior judgments:- Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. v. CC: Classified a similar scanner under Chapter Heading 9006.10.- Scan Electronics v. CC: Supported classification under Chapter Heading 90 based on photographic principles.- Metal Box Ltd. v. UOI: Relied upon by the Tribunal in prior cases.- Light Publications v. CC: Upheld classification of a master maker - printing plates under Chapter Heading 90.10 based on photographic principles.The Tribunal concluded that the principles of photography were clearly involved in the functioning of the Chromograph scanner CP345T. The classification under Chapter Heading 9006.10 was upheld, and the appeal was rejected.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the classification of the Chromograph scanner CP345T under Chapter Heading 9006.10, rejecting the appellant's claim for classification under Chapter 8443.60. The decision was based on the application of photographic principles in the equipment's functioning and supported by prior judgments, including Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. v. CC and Light Publications v. CC. The appeal was found to have no merit and was consequently rejected.