TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal reclassifies video monitors under Customs Tariff</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CUS., MUMBAI Versus VIKING INTEGRATION PROJECTS (P) LTD.</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CUS., MUMBAI Versus VIKING INTEGRATION PROJECTS (P) LTD. - 2003 (155) E.L.T. 179 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:Classification of video monitors under Customs Tariff - Heading 90.18 or Heading 85.28.Analysis:The appeal concerns the classification of video monitors used for sinoscopes under the Customs Tariff. The Revenue argues that video monitors should be classified under Heading 85.28, citing the General Interpretative Rules (GIR) 3(a), which states that the most specific description in a heading should be preferred over more general descriptions. The Revenue also points out that the World Customs Organization's alphabetical index supports this classification under Heading 85.28. On the other hand, the Respondent supports the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to classify the video monitors under Heading 90.18, arguing that there is no exclusion for video monitors under this heading.Upon review of the case records, the Tribunal notes that the Commissioner (Appeals) classified the goods under both sub-headings 8528.21 and 9018.19, but later concluded that they should be under sub-heading 9018.90, leading to an inconsistency in the decision. The Tribunal highlights that sub-heading 9018.19 covers electro diagnostic apparatus, while sub-heading 9018.90 encompasses instruments used in medical, surgical, dental, or veterinary sciences. Notably, video monitors are specifically listed under Heading 85.28, indicating a separate classification without any exclusion.The Tribunal emphasizes the application of GIR 1 and GIR 3(a), which dictate that classification should be based on the most specific description in a heading. It clarifies that all video monitors should be classified under Heading 85.28, as per GIR 3(a. The Tribunal criticizes the Commissioner (Appeals) for incorrectly applying GIR 3(c), which deals with classification when other rules cannot be applied. In this case, the video monitors can be classified under Heading 85.28 using GIR 3(a), rendering the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision erroneous.Consequently, the Tribunal sets aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and reinstates the original classification, ruling in favor of the Department's appeal.
TaxTMI 