Safire Cine Priograph vs Commissioner of Customs, Chennai>2001(12)LCX0078

2001(12)LCX0078

IN THE CEGAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI

S/Shri S.L. Peeran, Member (J) and Jeet Ram Kait, Member (T)

SAFIRE CINE PRIOGRAPH

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI

Final Order No. 2026/2001, dated 7-12-2001 in Appeal No. C/210/2000

Cases Quoted

Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector — 1997(12)LCX0125 Eq 1998 (100) ELT 0255 (Tribunal) — Referred.... [Paras 1, 3, 6]

Light Publications v. Collector — 2000(09)LCX0286 Eq 2000 (121) ELT 0495 (Tribunal-LB) — Relied on...... [Paras 3, 6]

Metal Box Ltd. v. U.O.I. — Writ Petition No. 439 of 1981 — Referred............................ [Paras 3, 6]

Scan Electronics v. Collector — 1988(02)LCX0084 Eq 1988 (035) ELT 0690 (Tribunal - LB) — Referred........... [Paras 3, 6]

State Haryana v. Commissioner — 98 SC 342 — Referred..................................................... [Para 2]

Advocated By : Shri M.S. Kumarasamy, Consultant, for the Appellant.

Shri G.S. Menon, SDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - In this appeal the appellant has claimed classification of the item Chromograph scanner CP345T under chapter sub-heading 8443.60 as a machine for use as ancillary to printing. Their claim was rejected after thorough examination of the catalogue and found out from the catalogue that the equipment employs photographic principle and that its nature and function is both of scanner as well as to develop the picture of a film. It was noticed that the issue is covered by the Tribunal’s judgment in the case of Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. v. CC as reported in 1998 (100) ELT 255 wherein the item “scanner Chroma Graphic DC 380 colour scanner with exposing unit ER and standard accessories using the principle of photography for preparation of printing plates was held to be classifiable under Chapter Heading 9006.10 and the prayer of the importer for classification under Chapter 84.43 was rejected. The Assistant Commissioner noticed from the literature that both the items were same except minor technical specification being different. Therefore, he has applied the Tribunal’s cited judgment and rejected the importers claim for classification under 84.43. Ld. Commissioner in his impugned order also agreed with the Assistant Commissioner and noted that the issue was covered by the judgment referred to by the Assistant Commissioner in the order-in-original.

2. Arguing for the appellant, ld. Consultant Shri Kumarasamy pointed out that the item along with the printing machine works after scanning the picture and separating the colour. He referred the above technical literature and the write-up and applied that it has to be classified only under Chapter Heading 8543. The intended function of the item is to work as ancillary for printing which is paramount for classification under Chapter Heading 8443. In this regard he also referred to the citation of the judgment rendered in the case of State Haryana v. CC as reported in 98 SC 342 wherein the terms actually used was interpreted. He contended that in the cited case the party had agreed that the photographic principle was employed and there was a camera inside the equipment. While in the present case no such admission has been made and therefore the Tribunal’s ruling is justifiable.

3. Ld. SDR points out from the item at page 9 which was read by the ld. Consultant that the item has all the principles of photographic and it is an identical product to the one referred to by the Tribunal in the case of Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. (supra). He further points out that the Tribunal had also referred to its earlier Larger Bench judgment rendered in the case of Scan Electronics v. CC as reported in 1988 (035) ELT 690 and also Bombay High Court judgment rendered in the case of Metal Box Ltd. v. UOI, No. 439/1981. He submits that the matter was again referred to Larger Bench of 5 Members in the case of Light Publications v. CC as reported in 2000 (121) ELT 495 for examining the correct classification of “master maker - printing plates”. The Tribunal after due examination found that the item employed photographic principle in its working and therefore held that the item to be classified only under Chapter Heading 90.10 and overruled the Heading 84.34 and all judgments rendered under that heading and accepted those orders of the Tribunal which adopted the Chapter Heading 90. He submits that in terms of the literature and the catalogue and the citation referred to, the appellants do not have a case and the appeal is required to be rejected.

5. On a careful consideration and on examination of the catalogue we find that the authorities below have correctly analysed and applied the principles of classification in the matter. We notice from the certificate which is reproduced at page 9 which describes functioning of the colour scanner referred to as ChromaGraphic DC 380T and CP345T. The certificate is extracted below :

To whom so ever it may concern

The colour scanner which is imported Chromagraph CP 345 is used in the Printing Industry for the colour separation work. The work procedure is as follows :

The colour originals, Reflection Artworks or Colour Transparencies, are mounted on the scanning drum. The scanning lens analyses the original, and the light falls on the colour separation filters which are located in the scanning head. The separated light falls on the Photomultiplier, where they are converted to equivalent electronic signals. The colour computer recieves these signals and the operator can control the hue, colour, gradations, detail, in the quarter tone, middle tone and shadow areas of the pictures as and when required.

From the colour computer the data goes to digital Electronics where scaling of the picture takes place. Then their signals are sent to the Laser Carriage where the Electronic Signals are used to modulate the Laser Light which forms the dots on the film. The laser light passes through fibre optics and falls on the drum where the film is mounted and the film is written with the image. The film is taken to the processor for developing, fixing and washing. The washed films are dried and checked for any disformation of images. Likewise the yellow, magenta, cyan, black colour positives are made and used to expose onto the plates. The CMYK plates are mounted on the printing machine. On white paper, Y plate with Yellow ink, M plate with Magenta ink, C plate with Cyan ink, K plate with Black ink, applies the corresponding images and we get the final print which is sent out to the customers.

Originals

Transparencies

Reflection

Scanning Drum

Colour Separation Filters

PMT’S

Colour Computer

Scale Computer

Laser Carriage

Film in the drum Y, M, C, K

Processor DEV/FIX/WASH and DRY

Plate making, CMYK plates

Printing Machine
CMYK colour inks on paper

Final Printed Result

6. On reading of the above material it is seen that the principle of photography is involved. The laser light passes through fibre optics and falls on the drum where the film is mounted and the film is imprinted with the image. The film is taken to the processor for developing, fixing and washing. The washed film is dried and checked for any disformation of images. This material including the drawing and the reading of the catalogue clearly shows the principles of photography being utilised including the use of film. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner applying the judgment of Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. which classified Scanner ChromaGraphic DC 380 colour scanner with exposing unit ER and standard accessories under Chapter Heading 90.06 is correct and requires to be upheld. The rejection of classification under Chapter Heading 84.60 is in keeping with the judgment cited by the Assistant Commissioner. We further note that the Tribunal in the case of Colour Scanner Pvt. Ltd. (supra) have referred to earlier Larger Bench judgment of the Tribunal in the Scan Electronics (supra) and which relied on the Bombay High Court in the case of Metal Box Ltd. v. CC (supra). We also notice that the Larger Bench in the case of Light Publications v. CC (supra) upheld the classification to master maker - printing plates under Chapter Heading 90.10 solely on the basis of item working on the principle of photography. We notice even if both the headings are appropriate in terms of Rule 3(o) of Interpreting Rules, the latter heading is required to be adopted. Therefore, viewing from all sides the appellants do not have a case and matter has been rightly determined by the lower authorities in the light of the judgment cited. The judgment of the Larger Bench rendered in the case of Light Publications also clearly applies to the facts of the case. In that view of the matter there is no merit in this appeal and hence, the appeal is rejected.

_______

Final Printed Result 6. On reading of the above material it is seen that the principle of photography is involved. The laser light passes through fibre optics and falls on the drum where the film is mounted and the film is imprinted with the image. The film is taken to the processor for developing, fixing and washing. The washed film is dried and checked for any disformation of images. This material including the drawing and the reading of the catalogue clearly shows the principles of photography being utilised including the use of film. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner applying the judgment of Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. which classified Scanner ChromaGraphic DC 380 colour scanner with exposing unit ER and standard accessories under Chapter Heading 90.06 is correct and requires to be upheld. The rejection of classification under Chapter Heading 84.60 is in keeping with the judgment cited by the Assistant Commissioner. We further note that the Tribunal in the case of Colour Scanner Pvt. Ltd. (supra) have referred to earlier Larger Bench judgment of the Tribunal in the Scan Electronics (supra) and which relied on the Bombay High Court in the case of Metal Box Ltd. v. CC (supra). We also notice that the Larger Bench in the case of Light Publications v. CC (supra) upheld the classification to master maker - printing plates under Chapter Heading 90.10 solely on the basis of item working on the principle of photography. We notice even if both the headings are appropriate in terms of Rule 3(o) of Interpreting Rules, the latter heading is required to be adopted. Therefore, viewing from all sides the appellants do not have a case and matter has been rightly determined by the lower authorities in the light of the judgment cited. The judgment of the Larger Bench rendered in the case of Light Publications also clearly applies to the facts of the case. In that view of the matter there is no merit in this appeal and hence, the appeal is rejected. _______

Equivalent 2002 (145) ELT 0183 (Tri. - Chennai)

Equivalent 2002 (049) RLT 0195