Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Risograph machine was classifiable as a printing machine under sub-heading 8443.50 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or as a duplicating machine under sub-heading 8472.90 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
Analysis: The classification had to be determined by the machine's true nature, the HSN Explanatory Notes and the manner in which the machine worked. The Notes to heading 84.72 excluded small printing machines even if they could also perform duplicating functions, while the Notes to heading 84.43 included certain small office printing machines that are sometimes improperly referred to as duplicating machines. The Risograph was found to work through digital scanning, thermal master-making and an ink transfer process closely akin to screen printing, where the master functions like the stencil-screen used in screen printing. Its essential function was therefore printing and not mere duplication. The earlier view in Pioneer International was held not to lay down the law correctly.
Conclusion: The Risograph machine was held to be a screen printing machine falling under sub-heading 8443.50 and not a duplicating machine under sub-heading 8472.90.
Ratio Decidendi: For tariff classification, the machine's essential function and the HSN Explanatory Notes prevail over a mere description as a duplicating apparatus; a small office machine whose process is akin to screen printing is classifiable as printing machinery rather than as a duplicating machine.