https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86283 Imported smoke detectors using an ionisation chamber were classified according to their own detecting function, not as fire alarm apparatus. Technical literature, expert opinion and the device structure showed that the goods detected smoke concentration and did not themselves emit sound or visual alarm signals; they operated as complete instruments that triggered a connected alarm panel. The departmental reliance on the Explanatory Note was rejected because it concerned fire alarms incorporating smoke detectors, not the detector itself. The goods were therefore classified under Heading 9027.80 rather than Heading 8531.10, and the assessee's classification was upheld. en-us Tue, 12 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:02:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86283 Imported smoke detectors using an ionisation chamber were classified according to their own detecting function, not as fire alarm apparatus. Technical literature, expert opinion and the device structure showed that the goods detected smoke concentration and did not themselves emit sound or visual alarm signals; they operated as complete instruments that triggered a connected alarm panel. The departmental reliance on the Explanatory Note was rejected because it concerned fire alarms incorporating smoke detectors, not the detector itself. The goods were therefore classified under Heading 9027.80 rather than Heading 8531.10, and the assessee's classification was upheld. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 12 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86283