Tribunal rejects importers' claim, machines classified as telecommunication printing devices.

The Tribunal rejected the importers' claim to classify the machines as computer sub-systems under Heading 84.51/55(2) of the Customs Tariff, 1975. Despite arguments and evidence presented by the importers, including references to the Brussels Trade Nomenclature and the machine's design for computer system integration, the Tribunal found that the machines could function as telecommunication printing devices based on their technical descriptions and potential applications. Consequently, the appeal was denied, and the machines were deemed eligible for classification as telecommunication printing devices rather than computer sub-systems.

---

---

Issues: Classification of imported machines under Customs Tariff, 1975.

Analysis:
1. The importers claimed that the machines DZM-180 mosaic character printers should be classified under Heading 84.51/55(2) of the Customs Tariff, 1975, at 40% ad valorem as computer sub-systems. They argued that the machine had no application in telecommunication and provided evidence from their catalogue and a certificate from the Senior Scientific Officer of the Department of Electronics certifying it as a computer peripheral.

2. The learned counsel for the importers emphasized that the machine met the definitions of computer sub-systems as per the Brussels Trade Nomenclature and was specifically designed to be part of a computer system, with connections made by cables. They also highlighted the predominant use of the machine as a computer sub-system, citing relevant case law to support their argument.

3. On the other hand, the department argued that the machine could act as a telecommunication printing device based on references from the McGraw-Hill Encyclopaedia on Electronics and Computers and the importer's literature suggesting its use in telecommunication and typesetting applications.

4. The Tribunal examined the evidence presented, including the correspondence between the Assistant Collector and the Senior Scientific Officer, the machine's technical descriptions, and its potential applications. It was noted that the machine could be linked and used as a printing device in telecommunication, as indicated by its design and capabilities.

5. Despite the importers' assertion that the machine's predominant use was as a computer sub-system, the Tribunal concluded that the machine had telecommunication applications, making it eligible for classification as a telecommunication printing device. Therefore, the appeal was rejected based on this finding.

---