Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the imported electronic diaries were classifiable under Heading 84.70 or Heading 84.71 of the customs tariff, and whether the classification reflected in the import policy publication bound the customs authorities for assessment of duty.
Analysis: The imported goods were pocket-size electronic diaries capable of recording numbers and addresses and performing calculating functions. They did not answer the description of automatic data processing machines or the other goods covered by Heading 84.71. The goods fell within the description of pocket-size data recording, reproducing and displaying machines with calculating functions under Heading 84.70. The classification shown in the import policy publication was held to be incorrect for customs duty assessment, because tariff classification is governed by the customs tariff itself and not by a classification adopted for import trade control purposes. The claimed benefit of doubt was rejected because no ambiguity existed in the tariff position.
Conclusion: The goods were held classifiable under Heading 84.70, and the appeal against the confirmed duty demand was dismissed in favour of the Revenue.
Ratio Decidendi: For assessment of customs duty, classification must be determined solely by the customs tariff, and a classification adopted in an import policy publication does not control tariff classification.