TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal classifies 'Uni-Lite XCEL' as contamination level measuring instrument, not light meter.</h1> <h3>VASTA MARKETING Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI</h3> VASTA MARKETING Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI - 2010 (253) E.L.T. 129 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues: Classification of imported instrument under CTH 9027.80 or 9031.80In this case, the issue revolved around the classification of the imported instrument 'Uni-Lite XCEL' under the Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 9027.80 as claimed by the appellants or under CTH 9031.80 as determined by the authorities below. The appellants argued that the instrument measured light to determine pollution content, while the Department contended that it measured ATP levels to determine contamination levels, not light.Analysis:The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the 'Uni-Lite XCEL' should be classified under Heading 90.27 as it falls under instruments for measuring quantities of light. The instrument works by detecting ATP levels using Biotrace reagents, emitting light which is measured to indicate cleanliness or contamination levels. The Counsel referenced the Heading 90.27 and Explanatory Notes to support the classification under instruments for measuring light. They emphasized the alphanumeric display and color-coded results as evidence of measuring light for pollution content determination.On the other hand, the Department argued that the instrument is used to determine contamination levels, not measure light like luxmeters do. They highlighted that the instrument measures ATP levels, not illumination units like lux. After examining the product catalogues, it was found that the instrument does not measure illumination in lux units but rather ATP levels to indicate contamination levels. The Tribunal concluded that the instrument is a hygiene testing instrument rather than a luxmeter for measuring light.The Tribunal further analyzed the classification under Heading 90.27, noting that light measuring instruments are specified in a separate part which does not include the impugned instrument. Refractometers, which are mentioned in the first part of Heading 90.27, do not automatically classify the impugned instrument under the third part for light measuring instruments. Additionally, the Tribunal considered the argument regarding the residuary entry, citing a Supreme Court order, and concluded that since the instrument measures ATP levels for contamination/cleanliness determination, it is more appropriately classified under the residuary entry 9031.80 for other instruments.In the final decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the classification of the 'Uni-Lite XCEL' under CTH 9031.80 as an instrument for measuring contamination levels rather than under CTH 9027.80 for measuring quantities of light. The classification was based on the instrument's function of measuring ATP levels to determine cleanliness or contamination levels of surfaces and liquids.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the arguments presented by both parties, the examination of relevant headings and explanatory notes, and the ultimate decision reached by the Tribunal regarding the classification of the imported instrument.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
