Student interactive response systems classified as data processing equipment under CTH 8471 60 29 rather than standalone electrical apparatus

The CESTAT Bangalore rejected the Department's appeal regarding classification of student interactive response systems. The appellant had classified the goods under CTH 8543 87 99 for electronic machines with individual functions, but the tribunal found these goods did not satisfy the criteria for individual functioning electrical appliances. The tribunal upheld the Commissioner's classification under CTH 8471 60 29, noting the equipment functions as teaching accessories used with ADP machines to enable student responses to queries. The decision was supported by similar classifications at Hyderabad and Chennai, confirming the goods' proper classification as data processing equipment rather than standalone electrical apparatus.

---

---

Issues involved: Classification of imported goods under CTH 8471 and CTH 8543.

Issue 1: Classification of imported goods

The Respondent imported "Student interactive respond system" and classified it under CTH 8471 60 29, while the Appellant classified it under CTH 8543 70 99. The Commissioner (Appeals) classified the goods under CTH 8471 60 29, considering the Tribunal's decision in M/s D Link India Ltd and the classification by other Customs houses. The Department appealed this classification.

Details: The Appellant argued that the goods, consisting of wireless key pad and IR receivers, work on wireless transmission technology and are excluded from heading 8471 by Chapter Note 5(D) of Chapter 84. They contended that the goods should be classified under heading 8543, as per Chapter Note 5(E) to Chapter 84. The Respondent argued that the goods fall under CTH 8543 70 99, as they are electronic machines with individual functions not specified elsewhere in Chapter 85, and Chapter Note 5(E) is not applicable in this case.

Decision: The Tribunal ruled that the impugned goods do not satisfy the criteria for classification under CTH 8543 as items with individual functions. The goods were considered teaching accessories used with ADP machines, similar to items cleared under CTH 8471 at other organizations. The Department's appeal was rejected.

Separate Judgment by Judge:

No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.

---