Gas detector classification turned on alarm function, placing the device under signalling apparatus rather than a gas analyser.

An imported NEOTOX Exhaust Gas Indicator that measured hazardous gas levels and also sounded an alarm for safety was held classifiable under Heading 85.31.80 as an electric sound or visual signalling apparatus, not under Heading 9027.80 as a gas analyser. Because the goods were treated as alarm devices rather than mere analysers, the claim for clearance under OGL also failed. The redemption fine was found excessive on the facts and was reduced from Rs. 75,000 to Rs. 35,000. The ruling treats the alarm function as the dominant feature where a device combines measurement with warning signals.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported NEOTOX Exhaust Gas Indicator was classifiable under Heading 9027.80 as a gas analyser or under Heading 85.31.80 as an electric sound or visual signalling apparatus; (ii) whether the goods were entitled to clearance under OGL; (iii) whether the redemption fine required modification.

Issue (i): Whether the imported NEOTOX Exhaust Gas Indicator was classifiable under Heading 9027.80 as a gas analyser or under Heading 85.31.80 as an electric sound or visual signalling apparatus.

Analysis: The instrument measured the percentage of hazardous gases and simultaneously operated as an alarm to warn workers when safety limits were exceeded. The catalogue showed that the device was carried by workers and functioned as both a measuring instrument and a signalling device. Heading 9027 covered instruments for physical or chemical analysis, but the reasoning treated the alarm function as the dominant feature. The HSN notes relied upon distinguished gas analysers used for furnace gas analysis from electronic smoke or gas detectors fitted with alarms, which were placed under Heading 85.31.

Conclusion: Classification under Heading 85.31.80 was upheld and the claim for classification under Heading 9027.80 failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the goods were entitled to clearance under OGL.

Analysis: The claim for OGL clearance was based on the goods being portable gas and combustion analysers. Since the goods were found to be essentially alarms rather than mere analysers, the basis for OGL clearance did not survive.

Conclusion: The claim for OGL clearance was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the redemption fine required modification.

Analysis: On the facts and circumstances, the fine was considered excessive and was reduced.

Conclusion: The redemption fine was reduced from Rs. 75,000 to Rs. 35,000.

Final Conclusion: The order was substantially sustained on classification and import entitlement, with only the redemption fine being reduced.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a device measures gas levels but is essentially designed to warn of hazardous gas by sounding a visual or audible alarm, it is classifiable as signalling apparatus rather than as a gas analyser.

---