1992 (7) TMI 204 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Classification of Electronic Photo Tubes, Denies Duty Refund

The Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision classifying imported electronic photo tubes under CTH 90.28(1) of the CTA, 1975, denying the ... Classification Issues: Classification of imported electronic photo tubes, eligibility for duty refund, application of Notification No. 172/77-Cus., dated 8-8-1977.Classification of imported electronic photo tubes:The case involved the classification of imported electronic photo tubes initially under CTH 85.18/27(4) and later under CTH 85.18/27(1). The respondents sought a refund based on the revised classification. The Assistant Collector of Customs classified the photo tubes as falling within the excepted clause under S. No. 8(iv)(c) rather than under S. No. 8(iv)(a) of the Table to the notification. However, on appeal, the Collector of Customs (Appeals) held that the goods were classifiable under CTH 90.28(1) of the CTA, 1975, and that the benefit of the notification was not applicable. The lower appellate authority's decision was based on the classification under CTH 90.28(1) and the duty rate associated with it, leading to the withdrawal of the refund.Eligibility for duty refund:The respondents initially applied for a duty refund based on the reclassification of the electronic photo tubes. The refund was allowed and sanctioned, but later the Superintendent of Customs issued a notice stating that the refund was erroneously granted, leading to a demand for a lesser charge. The Assistant Collector of Customs upheld the Superintendent's notice, leading to further appeals and disputes regarding the correct classification and duty rate applicable to the imported goods.Application of Notification No. 172/77-Cus., dated 8-8-1977:The controversy centered around whether the imported goods were covered by the omnibus notification providing for a lower rate of duty to goods falling under CTH 85.18/27(1), except for specified goods in the Table to the notification. The dispute revolved around the interpretation of S. No. 8(iv) of Col. (4) against S. No. 8 of Col. (1) of the Table. The respondents argued that the goods did not fall under the category specified in the notification, emphasizing the function and purpose of the photo tubes in their spectrophotometer.In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, agreeing with the respondents' representative that the imported goods, electronic photo tubes, could not be treated as display devices as per the findings of the original authority. The Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and upheld the classification and duty rate determined by the lower appellate authority, thereby denying the eligibility for the duty refund based on the reclassification of the goods.