2017 (1) TMI 469 - AT - Customs

Imported Monotype Machine Classified as Hot Metal: Expert Opinion Key in Customs Classification

M/s. Sat Prachar Press Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import) Mumbai

The Tribunal accepted the appellant's argument that the imported Monotype Machine qualified as a Hot Metal Monotype Machine under the exemption ... Classification of imported goods - Monotype Machine - eligibility of exemption N/N. 114/80-Cus - whether the Monotype Machine is a Hot Metal Monotype Composing Machine? - Held that: - From the above affidavit, which is based on the brochure of Monotype Machine and manufacturing company, it is clear that Monotype Machines are always Hot Metal Monotype Machine and same contained electric melting pot. The department could not discard this Affidavit or the technical literature without any contrary and acceptable evidence, therefore we accept the submission of the appellant - the machine imported namely Monotype Machine imported by the appellant is nothing but Hot Metal Monotype Machine and entitled for the exemption under N/N. 114/80-Cus. - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Interpretation of exemption notification regarding the classification of imported Monotype Machine.2. Rejection of technical data provided by the appellant to support the classification of the machine.3. Consideration of evidence and material to determine if the Monotype Machine qualifies as a Hot Metal Monotype Machine for exemption under Notification No. 114/80-Cus.Issue 1: Interpretation of exemption notification regarding machine classificationThe case involved an appeal regarding the classification of an imported Monotype Machine under an exemption notification. The appellant imported the machine but faced a discrepancy during audit as it was not classified as a Hot Metal Monotype Composing Machine as per the relevant exemption Notification No. 114/80-Cus. The dispute led to a demand notice for short levy under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. Despite producing technical data and affidavits to support their claim that the Monotype Machine was indeed a Hot Metal Monotype Machine, the appellant's appeal was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal had earlier remanded the matter for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need to determine if the two machines were the same. Ultimately, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's argument, based on the technical literature and expert affidavit, that the Monotype Machine imported was indeed a Hot Metal Monotype Machine, thus qualifying for the exemption under the notification.Issue 2: Rejection of technical data by the Commissioner (Appeals)The appellant submitted detailed technical data and affidavits from an engineer to explain that the Monotype Machine imported was synonymous with a Hot Metal Monotype Machine as per the exemption notification. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected this evidence without providing adequate reasoning or contrary material to dispute the expert opinion presented. The Tribunal noted the importance of considering the technical data and expert opinions in such cases, emphasizing that the Commissioner should have justified the dismissal of the provided evidence. The Tribunal also clarified that a previous Supreme Court judgment cited by the Commissioner was not applicable to the present case, further highlighting the necessity of evaluating the technical explanations presented by the appellant.Issue 3: Consideration of evidence to determine machine classificationThe Tribunal carefully reviewed the technical data and affidavits submitted by the appellant, particularly focusing on the expert opinion of the qualified engineer regarding the nature of the Monotype Machine. The engineer's affidavit detailed how all Monotype Casting Machines are essentially Hot Metal Monotype Machines, supported by technical literature and photographs of the machine's components. The Tribunal found the engineer's explanation, based on industry literature and official manuals, to be convincing and in line with the requirements of the exemption notification. By accepting the expert opinion and technical evidence presented, the Tribunal concluded that the Monotype Machine imported by the appellant qualified as a Hot Metal Monotype Machine, thus overturning the earlier decision and allowing the appeal with appropriate relief granted in accordance with the law.This detailed analysis of the judgment outlines the key issues, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision based on the interpretation of the exemption notification and the technical evidence provided by the appellant.