Duplicating machine classification under customs tariff upheld; redemption fine and penalty reduced for lack of wilful manipulation.

An imported Risograph printer that feeds an original through a scanner, creates a master inside the machine, and then reproduces copies was treated as a duplicating machine rather than printing machinery. The machine was held classifiable under Heading 8472 as an office machine, not under Heading 8443 as printing machinery, because it did not operate by the printing mechanisms contemplated by that heading. Although the goods were liable to confiscation, the absence of clandestine conduct or wilful manipulation justified moderation of the monetary consequences, and the redemption fine and penalty were reduced.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the imported Risograph printer was classifiable as printing machinery under Heading 8443 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act or as an office machine under Heading 8472; (ii) whether the redemption fine and penalty required interference.

Issue (i): whether the imported Risograph printer was classifiable as printing machinery under Heading 8443 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act or as an office machine under Heading 8472.

Analysis: The product literature showed that the machine feeds the original into a scanner, makes a master copy inside the machine, and then reproduces copies from that master. Heading 8443 covers printing machinery used by means of type, blocks, plates or cylinders, while Heading 8472 covers other office machines including stencil duplicating machines. The machine did not have a mechanism for printing original matter in the sense of offset printing machinery, and its working was found to be analogous to a duplicating machine rather than a printing machine.

Conclusion: The machine was not classifiable under Heading 8443 and was correctly classified under Heading 8472 in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): whether the redemption fine and penalty required interference.

Analysis: Although the goods were held liable to confiscation, the absence of clandestine act or wilful manipulation justified moderation of the monetary consequences.

Conclusion: The redemption fine and penalty were reduced.

Final Conclusion: The classification adopted by the customs authorities was sustained, while the confiscatory consequences were moderated by granting partial relief on fine and penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a machine reproduces copies by making a master within the machine and functions as a duplicating machine rather than as printing machinery, it is classifiable as an office machine and not under the printing machinery heading.

---