2025 (6) TMI 1677 - AT - Customs

Imported printing frames profile SLOP classified as screen-printing machinery parts under CTI 8443 9990, not aluminum structures

Classic Stripes Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import) Jawaharlal Nehru Customs House (JNCH) Nhava Sheva, Taluka-Uran, District-Raigad, Maharashtra

CESTAT Mumbai held that imported printing frames profile SLOP are classifiable under CTI 8443 9990 as parts of screen-printing machinery, not under CTI ... Classification of imported goods - printing frames profile SLOP - same merits classification under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 8443 9990 as claimed by the appellants or, is it classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading (CTI) 7610 9090 as determined by the learned Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)? - HELD THAT:- By applying the GIR 1, the position is made clear that Chapter Sub-Heading 7610 90 covers within its scope and ambit, other aluminium structures and other aluminium goods used in structures; however, these do not cover aluminium parts or aluminium structures for use in screen-printing machines. Further, the CTI 7610 9090 is a residual heading of ‘other’ which does not specifically cover the impugned goods, just because it is made of aluminium. It is also worthwhile to note that the ‘aluminium profiles’ covered under the CTH 7604 are of basic shapes such as rods, bars, hollow profiles and the impugned goods are not covered under the scope of such heading, which require further working in order to bring it to goods of general or specific use. Therefore, the impugned goods are not covered by the CTI 7610 9090, as upheld by the learned Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in the impugned order, by confirming the decision of the original authority, on the classification of the impugned goods. Similarly, by applying same GIR 1, it could also be seen that Chapter Heading 8443 covers within its scope and ambit, mainly printing machinery used for printing by means of plates, cylinders and other printing components and its parts and accessories thereof. Further, it is also found that the impugned goods i.e., ‘printing frames profile’ are manufactured for specific use in ‘screen-printing machines’, in terms of overall dimension and the profile slope, sizes of which are in milli meters, as provided in detail in the invoice and packing list, evidencing the fact that the impugned goods have attained the essential character of ‘parts of screen-printing machines’. Conclusion - i) The imported printing frame profiles are parts of screen-printing machinery and classifiable under CTI 8443 9990. ii) The confiscation, differential duty demand, redemption fine, and penalty imposed on the appellants are set aside. Appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Tribunal were:(a) Whether the imported goods described as 'printing frames profile SLOP' are classifiable under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 8443 9990 (printing machinery and parts thereof) as claimed by the appellants, or under CTI 7610 9090 (aluminium structures and parts thereof) as determined by the Customs authorities;(b) Whether the classification under CTI 7610 9090, which led to imposition of differential customs duty, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962, is legally sustainable;(c) Whether the impugned order confirming confiscation, demand of differential duty, redemption fine, and penalty should be upheld or set aside.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Classification of the Imported GoodsRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal referred extensively to Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, including the First Schedule and the General Rules for Interpretation (GIR) of the Import Tariff. The classification principles under the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (HS) were emphasized, particularly the sequential application of GIR 1 to 6. The Tribunal also considered the General Explanatory Notes and Additional Notes to the Import Tariff.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that classification must be determined first by the terms of the headings and relative Section or Chapter Notes (GIR 1). If the headings and notes do not resolve the classification, then subsequent rules (GIR 2 to 6) apply. The essential character of the goods and their use are paramount considerations.The appellants imported 'printing frames profile SLOP' without screen mesh, intended to be mounted on their existing screen-printing machines. The appellants contended that these profiles have the essential character of parts of screen-printing machinery and thus fall under CTI 8443 9990.The Department classified the goods under CTI 7610 9090, which covers aluminium structures and parts thereof, effectively treating the goods as aluminium structural articles rather than machine parts.Key Evidence and Findings: The appellants submitted detailed invoices, packing lists, and product catalogues demonstrating the specific dimensions, profile slopes, and technical specifications of the imported frames. The catalogue explained that these frames endure significant force during printing and require high precision manufacturing to function as parts of screen-printing machines.The Department relied on a US Customs Ruling classifying extruded aluminium frames under a tariff heading analogous to 7616.99.50.90 in the US tariff schedule, but the Tribunal noted that such foreign rulings have no legal force in India.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal analyzed the relevant headings:Chapter 76 (Aluminium and articles thereof): Headings 7601 to 7616 cover various forms of aluminium products, including bars, rods, profiles, structures, and parts thereof. Heading 7610 covers aluminium structures and parts of structures, such as bridges, towers, roofs, doors, windows, and their frames. The Tribunal found that the impugned goods do not fall within the scope of aluminium structures or parts thereof used in construction or general structural applications.Chapter 84 (Machinery and mechanical appliances): Heading 8443 covers printing machinery used for printing by means of plates, cylinders, and other printing components, and parts and accessories thereof. Note 2 to Section XVI provides that parts suitable for use solely or principally with a particular machine are to be classified with that machine.The Tribunal concluded that the imported printing frame profiles, manufactured to specific dimensions and intended solely for use in screen-printing machines, have acquired the essential character of parts of such machinery. Hence, they are classifiable under CTI 8443 9990.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellants challenged the Department's reliance on foreign rulings and case law concerning 'printing screens made of silk', which were factually distinguishable. The Department's argument that the goods were mis-declared was rejected on the basis that the appellants furnished detailed technical documentation and that the goods were not general aluminium structures but specialized machine parts.Conclusions: The Tribunal held that the goods are parts of screen-printing machinery and rightly classifiable under CTI 8443 9990, not under CTI 7610 9090.Issue 2: Legality of Confiscation, Demand, Redemption Fine, and PenaltyRelevant Legal Framework: Sections 111(m), 114A, 112(a), and 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 were invoked by the Department for confiscation, penalty, and redemption fine based on the classification determined by the authorities.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: Since the Tribunal found that the classification under CTI 7610 9090 was incorrect, the basis for confiscation, differential duty demand, redemption fine, and penalty also failed.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order to the extent it upheld the revised classification and consequent penalties and fines.Conclusions: The confiscation, penalty, and redemption fine imposed on the appellants were not sustainable in law.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'Classification of goods shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative Section or Chapter Notes and, provided such headings or Notes do not otherwise require, according to the following provisions...' (GIR 1)'Note 2 to Section XVI provide guidelines/rules for classification of parts of machines. Accordingly, if a part is suitable for use solely or principally with a particular kind of machine or with a number of such machines, then the parts are to be classified with the machines of that kind.''The imported 'printing frames profiles' are appropriately classifiable under CTI 8443 9990, and not under the CTI 7610 9090.''The impugned order dated 06.02.2014 classifying the imported goods under heading CTI 7610 9090 by upholding the original order does not stand the scrutiny of law and therefore it is liable to be dismissed.'Core principles established include:The paramount importance of the essential character and intended use of goods in tariff classification;The application of General Rules for Interpretation (GIR) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, particularly the primacy of GIR 1 and the application of Note 2 to Section XVI for parts of machinery;Rejection of foreign customs rulings as binding precedent in Indian classification disputes;Invalidity of penalties and confiscation based on incorrect classification of imported goods.Final determinations:The imported printing frame profiles are parts of screen-printing machinery and classifiable under CTI 8443 9990;The classification under CTI 7610 9090 is incorrect;The confiscation, differential duty demand, redemption fine, and penalty imposed on the appellants are set aside;The appeal filed by the appellants is allowed with consequential relief as per law.