2015 (4) TMI 380 - AT - Customs

Tribunal classifies projectors for automatic data processing machines, supports appellant due to trade parlance evidence.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, classifying projectors under sub-heading 85286100 due to their principal use with automatic data processing ... Waiver of pre deposit - classification of projectors imported by the appellant - Classification under Customs Tariff sub-heading 85286100 or under customs tariff sub-heading 85286900 - Held that:- From the description in the tariff heading, it can be seen that the projector has to be of a kind solely or principally used in automatic data processing system. If the projectors are principally used in automatic data processing system. If the projectors are principally used with a computer, the item will be classifiable under this heading. The department has entirely relied upon brochures and technical specifications provided by the appellants and used for the sale of the imported projectors to come to the conclusion. There is no dispute that the projectors can be used with the computers - Just because the explanatory notes shows that monitors which are capable of accepting a signal only from the CPU of an ADP machine are included under monitor heading, does not mean that other items are not includible. After going through brochures, submissions and records, we find that prima facie , at this stage we are unable to find a strong reason to differentiate from the decision of this Tribunal taken earlier that the classification adoption by the appellant is appropriate. In our opinion, when the Revenue is relying upon the trade parlance, some evidence as to how the trade considers the item should have been brought out. We were not able to find any such evidence lead by the Revenue in the submissions of the learned A.R. or in the summary of the case filed by the appellant. In view of the above discussion, the requirement of pre-deposit is waived and stay against recovery is granted during the pendency of appeal - Stay granted. Issues:Classification of projectors imported by the appellant under Customs Tariff sub-heading 85286100 or 85286900, classification of parts of projectors under customs tariff sub heading 85299090, demand for duty, penalty under Sections 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act 1962, non-declaration of retail sale price, invocation of extended period for confirming the demand.Classification Issue:The issue revolves around the classification of projectors imported by the appellant, whether they should be classified under Customs Tariff sub-heading 85286100 as 'projectors solely or principally used with automatic data processing machines' or under sub-heading 85286900 as 'other projectors.' The Revenue contends that projectors should be classified under 85286900, with parts proposed to be classified under 85299090. The appellant argues that projectors are principally used with ADP machines, citing previous decisions in their favor, emphasizing the primary function of projectors to operate in conjunction with ADP machines. The Tribunal notes the technical specifications and brochures provided by the appellants and concludes that the projectors can be used with computers, raising the question of whether additional features like DVD player compatibility affect the classification.Trade Parlance and Technical Specifications:The appellant asserts that projectors are marketed for use with ADP machines, while the Revenue argues that projectors are not solely or principally used with ADP machines and can be used with various devices. The Tribunal examines the tariff headings and HSN explanatory notes, emphasizing that projectors of a kind solely or principally used in automatic data processing systems should be classified under 85286100. The Tribunal highlights that reliance on trade parlance and evidence of how the trade considers the item is crucial, noting a lack of such evidence presented by the Revenue. The Tribunal finds the appellant's classification appropriate based on the available information and grants a stay against recovery during the appeal process.Conclusion:The Tribunal rules in favor of the appellant, supporting the classification of projectors under sub-heading 85286100 based on their principal use with ADP machines. The decision emphasizes the importance of evidence regarding trade parlance and upholds the appellant's classification due to a lack of such evidence presented by the Revenue. The Tribunal waives the requirement of pre-deposit and grants a stay against recovery during the pendency of the appeal.