AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 611
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clearance for home consumption, but upon objection of 'proper officer' empowered under section 47 of Customs Act, 1962 was withheld and, subsequently, confiscated under section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 20,00,000 under section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 while imposed with penalty of Rs. 10,00,000 under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. 2. It is common ground that both the rival entries are about 'printing solutions' with the claim of 'inkjet printer capable of connecting to an automatic data processing machine or to a network' corresponding to tariff item 8443 3250 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as best description of impugned goods countered by 'ink jet printing machine' corresponding to tariff item 8443 3910 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 elaborated in the finding of original authority that '27. From the above, I conclude that the impugned goods are a printing machine (printing system). I find that unlike printers which gets the data inputs from external Automatic Data Processing (ADP) Systems, the impugned item has inbuilt ADP System (SRA MP Controller) supported by 'PRISMA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. The impugned approach to classification on the part of the original authority, and which we dare say is refreshing for its perspicacity, simplicity and intelligibility, appears to have been prompted as much by the relative positioning of the rival tariff lines with limited assistance to be found in the tools designed to aid distinguishment - whether it be the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) or the circular supra - as the plebianization of technology from 'information, communication and entertainment (ICE)' having been synergized. The submission of Learned Counsel for appellant was, in contrast, straitjacketed in stressing the significance, such as they are, of the Explanatory Notes to sub-heading 8443 32 in the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) and case law in support. The defence of the impugned order by Learned Authorized Representative urged delineation of machinery and peripherals while harping upon the circular of Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC) as authority on legislative intent. Indeed, there was hardly scope for stretch of arguments beyond the technical aspects unless both sides were willing to revert to 'first princi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missioner of Customs [2022 (6) TMI 320 (CESTAT Mumbai)]. Reliance was also placed on that decisions of the Tribunal in Aztec Fluids v. Commissioner of Customs [2023 (11) TMI 175 (CESTAT Ahmedabad)] and in Hewlett Packard India Sales v. Commissioner of Customs [2018 (4) TMI 1345 - CESTAT Mumbai]. He was categorical that, while some traits of 'automatic data processing' machines may have been present in the impugned goods, those could, by no means, be presumed as capable of autonomous function as printers. 6. According to Learned Authorized Representative, the claimed tariff line is limited to such printers as are only intended for fitment with 'automatic data processing (ADP)' machines which the impugned goods were not. He relied upon the finding in the order of the original authority that the hardware for the printers under import included provisioning for 'PRISMA software' that offered autonomous functioning besides pre-print and post-print mechanization not normally associated with normal printers. He relied upon note 4 in chapter 84 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 to counter the pleading that the articles, comprising, as they were, of parts and components, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in re Monotech Systems Ltd, on clearances effected at Chennai, to the factual matrix in imports by M/s Friends Color Images Pvt Ltd. The parent decision was, essentially, based on the binding nature of circular of Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC) and that, in another dispute, the first appellate authority had allowed the more favourable classification. An allusion, and only in passing, to the Explanatory Notes does not render the cited order as binding precedent. The decision in re Aztec Fluids and Machinery Pvt Ltd was erected on the decision allowing the classification claimed at Chennai in re Monotech Systems Ltd while, in re Hewlett Packard India Sales (P) Ltd, the Tribunal was called upon to decide the correctness of classification vis-à-vis 'usage specific purpose' in chapter 90 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The cross-rulings, under appropriate procedure of customs statute in the United States of America, were on the specific finding of usage with personal computers. 9. Such varied, and variegated, spectrum of disputes over 'printers' is not surprising; printing is an ancient technology that, having originated in from Asia, evolved into the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the nonce, in policy formulation. 11. In the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN), printers intended for computers were, by notes in chapter 84, attached to 'automatic data processing machines' as these were solely intended for such use and not elsewhere. Inkjet technology changed all that and such acknowledgment in Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) of 2002 was carried into Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) of 2007 as tariff line for 'inkjet printing machines'; at the same time, the same product - used with computers as 'output' or printers - was placed in the preceding sub-heading. The wisdom of that placement is best appreciated from note 5 in chapter 84 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 which engages when imported as 'system' and not independently. The problem in such independent importation is that the 'end use' remained uncertain and hence the 'fall back' on Explanatory Notes to chapter 84 of Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN); that the impugned goods are yet to assume form that may fall within sub-heading 8443 32 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is certainly bedevilment but with the appellant opting for classification b....