Tariff classification of facsimile machines upheld, with no suppression found and retrospective circular application rejected.

Facsimile machines and their parts were treated as classifiable under the tariff entry for machines capable of connecting to an automatic data processing machine or network, because the department did not adduce technical evidence to displace the importer's classification. The burden to justify a different classification remained on the department, and the goods had already been assessed on import and cleared after physical verification, so no deliberate misclassification, suppression or wilful misstatement was shown. The dispute was one of classification and interpretation, therefore the extended period of limitation was not available. A departmental circular could not be applied retrospectively to the importer's detriment, and the differential duty demand and penalty failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported facsimile machines and their parts were correctly classifiable under the tariff entry for machines capable of connecting to an automatic data processing machine or network, and whether the resulting demand, interest and penalty could survive.

Analysis: The tariff entry distinguished facsimile machines on the basis of their capability to connect to an automatic data processing machine or network. The appellant's case was that the machines could be networked by external devices, while the department did not produce technical evidence to show that such connectivity was impossible. The burden to prove a different classification lay on the department. As the goods had been assessed on import and cleared after physical verification, no deliberate misclassification, suppression or wilful misstatement was established. The dispute was essentially one of classification and interpretation, so the extended period of limitation was not invocable. The circular relied upon by the department could not be applied retrospectively to the detriment of the importer.

Conclusion: The classification adopted by the appellant was accepted, the differential duty demand failed, and the penalty also could not stand.

---