1999 (4) TMI 340 - AT - Customs

Printing Machine Classification Remanded for Reevaluation

The Tribunal remanded the case involving the classification of a printing machine to the Assistant Commissioner for reevaluation. It noted the absence of ... Printing machinery Issues:Classification of '14 x 22 EHD Series Kluge Automatic Die Cutting Embossing and Foil Stamping Press' under sub-heading 8443.60 or 8479.89 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.Detailed Analysis:1. Issue of Classification: The dispute revolves around whether the imported item, a printing machine, should be classified under sub-heading 8443.60 as claimed by the appellant or under the residuary sub-heading 8479.89 as held by the authorities below. The appellant argues that the machine is for uses ancillary to printing and should be treated as part of the printing industry. Reference is made to a Supreme Court decision stating that goods should be classified based on trade and common parlance. The appellant emphasizes that similar equipment was cleared under sub-heading 8443.60 by other Customs Houses. The appellant's contention is supported by Tribunal decisions and industry practices.2. Appellant's Arguments: The appellant, a printing industry specialist, asserts that the machine's sole function is to enhance the beauty of printed labels, which are products of the printing industry. The appellant highlights that the machine's catalog specifies its use in the printing industry. The appellant refers to previous Tribunal decisions and a Supreme Court ruling to support the classification under sub-heading 8443.60 or as a machine for uses ancillary to printing, not under 8479.89. The appellant presents evidence of similar equipment being cleared under the desired classification.3. Respondent's Counter: The respondent argues that the machine's primary functions are embossing and foil stamping, not directly related to printing. Referring to a previous Tribunal decision, the respondent justifies the classification under 8479.89 as a machine with individual functions. The respondent emphasizes that the machine's functions align with the classification criteria under 84.79.4. Judgment and Remand: The Tribunal considers the arguments presented and notes that the explanatory notes to the Harmonized System Nomenclature (HSN) do not explicitly cover embossing, stamping, or die cutting machines under sub-heading 8443.60. Acknowledging the evolving nature of industries and technologies, the Tribunal emphasizes the need to interpret tariff schedules considering advancements. Noting the inconsistency in classification by different Customs Houses, the Tribunal remands the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for reevaluation, considering the industry practices and previous clearances of similar equipment under the desired classification. The Tribunal allows the appeal by way of remand for further examination and a fresh order based on the observations provided.In conclusion, the judgment addresses the classification issue of the imported printing machine, emphasizing the need to interpret tariff schedules in light of industry practices, technological advancements, and consistent classification practices across Customs Houses. The case is remanded for a reevaluation by the jurisdictional authority to ensure a fair and accurate classification based on the provided observations and industry standards.