Separate classification, combined duty assessment: imported printer software on CD was assessable with the printer absent separate value proof.

Imported printer driver software on CD was held separately classifiable from the printer because it was presented as a distinct medium and not embedded in the apparatus; the printer fell under sub-heading 8471.60 and the software under sub-heading 8524.39. For duty assessment, Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Accessories (Conditions) Rules, 1963 were applied because the invoice and price list did not establish a satisfactory separate value for the software. The printer and software were therefore assessable together on the combined value, and the departmental challenge succeeded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the driver software on CD imported with the printer was classifiable separately from the printer. (ii) Whether Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Accessories (Conditions) Rules, 1963 could be applied to assess the printer and software together on a combined value.

Issue (i): Whether the driver software on CD imported with the printer was classifiable separately from the printer.

Analysis: Classification had to be determined under the General Interpretative Rules and the relevant Chapter Note. Chapter Note 6 to Chapter 85 provided that records and other media of Heading 85.24 remained classified there even when presented with the apparatus for which they were intended. The software was not embedded in or integrated with the printer; it was imported along with the printer as a separate medium. The authorities on computer software did not assist the department because the present case concerned separately presented software, not software forming an integral part of the apparatus.

Conclusion: The printer was classifiable under sub-heading 8471.60 and the driver software on CD was classifiable separately under sub-heading 8524.39.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Accessories (Conditions) Rules, 1963 could be applied to assess the printer and software together on a combined value.

Analysis: Section 19 applied where goods consisted of articles liable to different rates of duty and permitted combined assessment at the highest rate when separate value was not established. It also allowed separate assessment if the importer produced satisfactory evidence of separate value, and it treated accessories at the same rate as the principal article. In the present case, the invoice and price list did not show any reliable separate value for the software, and the split value claimed was not accepted as satisfactory. The printer and software were therefore liable to be assessed as a set on the combined value.

Conclusion: Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Accessories (Conditions) Rules, 1963 were correctly applied, and the combined assessment on the printer's value was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The departmental challenge succeeded, the appellate order was set aside, and the original assessment was restored on the footing that the printer and software, though separately classifiable, were assessable together for duty purposes because no satisfactory separate value was established.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported goods comprise separately classifiable articles but the importer does not establish a satisfactory separate value for one component, Section 19 permits assessment on the combined value at the applicable duty rate, while accessories may be assessed with the principal article.

---