Assessable value of conveyors excludes separately imported control system and related commissioning charges where the equipment remains distinct.

The imported control and signalling system was treated as a distinct item, not as part of the belt conveyors, because it was separately imported, delivered directly to the customer's site, and the conveyors were capable of functioning without it. Separate erection, commissioning and supervision charges did not convert that system into a component of the conveyors, and limited use of indigenous items for installation was not decisive. Its separate customs assessment under Heading 8437 further supported exclusion from the conveyor's assessable value under Heading 84.28. On that basis, the system value and related charges were not includible, and the demand and penalty could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the value of the imported control and signalling system, along with erection, commissioning and supervision charges, was includible in the assessable value of the belt conveyors manufactured by the appellant.

Analysis: The control system was not manufactured by the appellant, was imported separately, and was delivered directly to the customers' site. The conveyors were shown to be capable of functioning without such a system, and the system was supplied only in the case of the particular customer under a separate arrangement. The fact that some indigenous items were used for erection and that charges were recovered for supervision and commissioning did not convert the control system into a component part of the conveyors. The system had also been separately assessed to customs duty under Heading 8437, which supported its treatment as a distinct item rather than part of the conveyor classifiable under Heading 84.28.

Conclusion: The value of the imported control system and the related charges was not includible in the assessable value of the belt conveyors, and the demand and penalty could not stand.

---