Tribunal rules eddy current detector not a measuring device under Customs Tariff

The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, ruled that an eddy current non-destructive detector was primarily a checking instrument and did not qualify as a measuring device under Heading 90.28(4)/90.16(1) of the Customs Tariff. The tribunal emphasized the distinction between detecting and measuring defects, concluding that the detector's capabilities did not amount to precise measurement. Additionally, the tribunal held that even if the instrument could measure defects accurately, it would be entitled to the benefits of a customs duty rate specified in a notification. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the order of the Collector (Appeals) and dismissed the department's appeal.

---

---

Issues:
Classification of eddy current non-destructive detector under Heading 90.28(4)/90.16(1) of the Customs Tariff.

The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, addressed the issue of the classification of an eddy current non-destructive detector under Heading 90.28(4)/90.16(1) of the Customs Tariff. The Collector of Customs (Appeal) Bombay had classified the item under the said headings and sought to restore the original confiscation imposed by the Assistant Collector. The tribunal considered whether the detector was merely a checking instrument or if it also measured defects. The tribunal noted that the detector was used to detect cracks and fissures in metal that are not visible to the naked eye by generating an eddy current on the metal surface and amplifying any disturbances caused by defects. The Collector argued that the instrument not only checked for defects but also measured their dimensions based on the Assistant Collector's order, technical literature, and the respondent's write-up. However, the respondent contended that the literature did not establish the instrument as a measuring device and even if it did measure defects, it would qualify for the benefit of a customs notification. The tribunal analyzed the sensitivity and detectability of the instrument, concluding that while it could detect defects, it did not accurately measure them. The tribunal emphasized the distinction between detecting and measuring defects, stating that the instrument's capabilities did not amount to precise measurement. Therefore, the tribunal dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the instrument was primarily a checking instrument and did not qualify as a measuring device.

Furthermore, the tribunal considered whether, even if the instrument could measure defects, it would be entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 194/76-Cus. The tribunal opined that if the instrument could measure defects accurately, it would be both a measuring and checking instrument, making it eligible for the customs duty rate specified in the notification. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the order of the Collector (Appeals) and dismissed the department's appeal, affirming that the instrument did not meet the criteria for classification as a measuring device and was entitled to the benefits under the customs notification.

---