1983 (5) TMI 226 - AT - Customs

Appeal Allowed: Lower Duty Rate Granted for Printing Machine -77

The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants as the machine fell under Heading No. 90.10 and was for use in the printing industry, making them ... Exemption under Notification No. 11/77-Cus. - automatic film processor - use in printing industry - interpretation of exemption condition (non-exclusivity)Exemption under Notification No. 11/77-Cus. - automatic film processor - use in printing industry - interpretation of exemption condition (non-exclusivity) - Whether the Bobline 45 Automatic Film Processor imported for use in the printing industry qualifies for the lower rate of duty under Notification No. 11/77-Cus. despite having capacity for paper processing in addition to film processing - HELD THAT: - The tribunal examined Notification No. 11/77-Cus. and identified only two conditions for the concessional treatment: that the article be an automatic film processor falling under Heading No. 90.10 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and that it be imported for use in the printing industry. There is no stipulation in the notification that the machine must be exclusively for film processing. Both conditions were found to be satisfied by the Bobline 45 Automatic Film Processor. The capacity of the machine to perform paper processing in addition to film processing does not negate its character as an automatic film processor nor disentitle it from the exemption prescribed by the notification. Consequently, the departmental objection based on alleged exclusivity was rejected and the exemption held to be available.Appeal allowed; the machine qualifies for the lower rate of duty under Notification No. 11/77-Cus. and consequential relief was granted to the appellantsFinal Conclusion: The tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the Bobline 45 Automatic Film Processor satisfied the two conditions of Notification No. 11/77-Cus. and that the absence of an exclusivity requirement in the notification meant the exemption could not be denied merely because the machine could also process paper. The appellants sought lower duty rate under Notification No. 11/77-Cus. for Bobline 45 Automatic Film Processor. The claim was rejected due to the machine also processing paper. The Tribunal found no stipulation for exclusive film processing in the notification. As long as the machine falls under Heading No. 90.10 and is for use in printing industry, the exemption applies. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants.