1998 (5) TMI 100 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Reclassification Decision, Grants Benefit of Notification for Packing Machine

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to remand the matter for reclassification of 'Component Printing Machines' and denied the benefit of ... Classification of goods Issues Involved:1. Classification of imported 'Component Printing Machines' and applicability of Notification No. 16/85.2. Authority of the Commissioner to remand the matter for reclassification.3. Entitlement to the benefit of Notification No. 16/85 for 'Component Printing Machines'.4. Classification and benefit of Notification No. 125/86 for 'T.G. Gun Tucker'.Detailed Analysis:1. Classification of Imported 'Component Printing Machines' and Applicability of Notification No. 16/85:The primary issue was the classification of 'Component Printing Machines' imported by the appellants. The appellants sought classification under Heading 8443, which covers 'machines for use ancillary to printing,' and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 16/85. The lower authority classified the goods under sub-heading 8472.90, considering them as 'other office machines.' The Commissioner, upon examining the catalog and HSN Notes, concluded that the machines do not have a base for fixing on a table or desk, thus overruling the classification under 8472. The Commissioner also rejected the classification under Heading 8443, as the machines were simple hand-operated numbering machines not designed to operate with printing machines. Consequently, the Commissioner remanded the matter to the lower authority to consider classification under Heading 9611 or any other appropriate entry.2. Authority of the Commissioner to Remand the Matter for Reclassification:The appellants challenged the Commissioner's authority to remand the matter for reclassification, arguing that it violated the principles of natural justice. They contended that the Commissioner should either accept the Department's classification or the appellants' claim without introducing a new case. However, the Tribunal held that the Commissioner was within his rights to remand the matter for reconsideration of the correct classification, as the appellants themselves had challenged the classification under Heading 8472.3. Entitlement to the Benefit of Notification No. 16/85 for 'Component Printing Machines':The appellants claimed that the 'Component Printing Machines' were used in the garment or hosiery industry and thus should benefit from Notification No. 16/85. However, the Tribunal found that the machines were numbering machines, not packing machines, and thus did not fall within the ambit of the notification. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to deny the benefit of Notification No. 16/85, as the machines did not meet the description of packing machines.4. Classification and Benefit of Notification No. 125/86 for 'T.G. Gun Tucker':In the case of 'T.G. Gun Tucker,' the appellants sought the benefit of Notification No. 125/86, arguing that the stapling machine was a packing machine. The lower authorities denied the benefit, stating that the goods were general-purpose and not imported for use in the food processing/packaging industry. The Tribunal examined the notification and previous judgments, concluding that the notification did not stipulate exclusive use in the food industry or an actual user condition. The Tribunal held that the 'T.G. Gun Tucker' fell within the description of 'packing machines' and thus qualified for the benefit of Notification No. 125/86, allowing the appeal.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to remand the matter for reclassification of 'Component Printing Machines' and denied the benefit of Notification No. 16/85. However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for 'T.G. Gun Tucker,' granting the benefit of Notification No. 125/86, as the machine was deemed a packing machine.