Printer driver software remains separately classifiable and assessable; its value cannot be merged into printer value under customs law.

Printer driver software recorded on a medium and imported with printers was treated as a separate commodity classifiable under Heading 85.24, because Note 6 to Chapter 85 preserves the identity of software recorded on media even when supplied with the equipment it supports. The software was not treated as firmware, since it was not permanently resident in ROM. Its value was therefore separately assessable and not merged into the printer's value, with the customs exemption applying to the software on the facts stated. Section 19 of the Customs Act was considered inapplicable because the Customs Tariff Act supplies the relevant classification and valuation framework.

---

---

Issues: Whether printer driver software imported along with printers is classifiable separately under Heading 85.24 and exempt from customs duty, whether its value is separately assessable, and whether Section 19 of the Customs Act applies so as to include the software value in the printer value.

Analysis: The imported software was recorded on CD and installed on the computer hard disk to enable the printer to function, and it did not constitute firmware because it was not permanently resident in ROM. By applying Note 6 to Chapter 85 of the Customs Tariff Act, software recorded on media remains classifiable under Heading 85.24 even when presented with the apparatus for which it is intended. The software was therefore a distinct commodity from the printer, and the exemption under the relevant customs notifications applied to it. The decision in Acer India Ltd. was relied upon to hold that software retains its separate identity and that its value cannot be absorbed into the value of the hardware. Section 19 of the Customs Act was held inapplicable because the Customs Tariff Act contains its own classification and rate framework. In any event, the importer had produced satisfactory evidence of the software value, so the software was chargeable, if at all, only separately at its applicable nil rate.

Conclusion: Printer driver software was held classifiable under Heading 85.24 with separate assessability, its value was not includible in the printer value, Section 19 of the Customs Act did not apply, and the assessee was entitled to the claimed exemption.

Ratio Decidendi: Software recorded on a medium and imported with equipment remains separately classifiable under Heading 85.24, and where the tariff provides the relevant classification and valuation framework, the value of such software cannot be merged into the value of the hardware under Section 19 of the Customs Act.

---