2011(10)LCX0262

IN THE CESTAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) and Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (T)

Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi

Versus

Computer Infinite

Final Order No. C/479/2011(PB), dated 25-10-2011 in Appeal No. C/276/2007

Advocated By -

Shri R.K. Gupta, SDR, for the Appellant.
Ms. Asmita Nayak, Advocate, for the Respondent.

[Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) (for the Bench) (Oral)]. -

Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard Shri R.K. Gupta, learned SDR appearing for the revenue and Ms. Asmita Nayak, learned advocate for the respondents.


2. Brief facts of the case are that the party filed BE No. 356801 dated 21 -6-2006 for clearance of 3D Mouse Emulation, Model SI-E (stealth Serial Mouse) valued at USD 1125 FOB each, was claimed by the importer under CTH 84716060 attracting duty @ 0% +.16% 2% + 4%. Considering the value of impugned goods which appeared to be abnormally high for a mouse, the goods were got examined under first check examination and sample of goods was called. On perusal of sample and the catalogue, the item was found to be a big size mouse having 10 buttons (switched). Its size 9.5", which is at least 3 times bigger than a normal ADP mouse. The item was found to be performing a very specific function. According to product information which is available at website namely HTPP://wzvzv.Sharpertechnology.com/stealth 3D mouse. Html, the item has been found to be developed especially for mapping and capable of performing 32 various functions. A normal ADP mouse contains only 3 buttons and is capable of performing limited functions. Even value-wise no one will ever purchase such a costly piece of equipment as replacement for general ADP mouse until and unless the specialized mapping functions are required for specific purpose for which even the software to be used is different. Therefore the impugned goods appeared to be classifiable under CTH 8479 by virtue of provisions contained in chapter note 5(B) read with chapter note 5(E) of Chapter 84. The bill of entry was assessed accordingly under CTH 84799090. Later on the importer filed an appeal against the assessment made on the Bill of Entry before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) New Delhi.

The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in impugned order observed inter alia that there is an independent chapter sub-heading 84716060 under which all type of mouse, which are attached to computers are classified and impugned goods also merit classification under CTH 84716060. With the observations he set aside the assessment order passed by the assessing authority.


3. It is seen that Commissioner (Appeals) has held the goods to be classifiable under heading 84716060 on the ground that the same is 'mouse' and all types of mouses are covered under the said heading. For better appreciation we reproduce the relevant paras of Commissioner (Appeals) order :

"5. I have carefully gone through the facts of the case and the submission made in the appeal memorandum as well as advanced orally in oral at the time of personal hearing. I find that a shipment of 10 PCs of 3D mouse Model S I-E was imported by classifying the goods and CTH No. 84716060. But assessment of the goods was made under CTH No. 84799090 by the Assistant Commissioner and claimed duty @ 12.5%. Now the moot point before me is to decide whether the goods under dispute merit classification under CTH No. 84716060 or under CTH No. 84799090 as claimed by the department. Before coming to as conclusion I go through the classification of both the Chapter Headings which are reproduced below :-

"8471 Automatic data processing machines and units thereof; magnetic or optical readers, machines for transcribing data on to data media in coded form and machines for processing such data, not elsewhere specified or included.

84716060 ------ Mouse"

8479 --- Machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in this Chapter;

84799090 ------ Other"

From above it is apparent that there is an independent Chapter sub-heading No. 84716060 under which all types of "Mouse" which are at-tached to Computers are classified. In the instant case the item under im-port is a "Mouse" with the help of which a computer may be operated. From the above discussions I came to a conclusion that the impugned goods under imports merits classification under Chapter heading No. 84716060 and hence the Appellant's appeal is allowed."


4. Revenue in their appeal memo have contended that the name 'mouse' is misnomer. Inasmuch as the device in question has been specifically developed for mapping, the function that a normal computer mouse cannot perform. The goods are at least three times bigger than computer mouse and costlier than the value of the ordinary computer mouse, As per technical specification given in catalogue and information available on the website referred to herein above the equipment has been designed and developed for mapping purpose and is capable of performing 32 functions. The equipment works in conjunction with ADP machine performing a specific function other than the data processing and hence, by application of chapter note 5(B) read with Chapter note (5)E of Chapter 84 of CTA'75 is more appropriately classifiable under CTH 8479 (heading Explanatory Notes to CTH 8471, an apparatus can only be classified in this headings as a unit of an automatic data processing system if it :-

(i) Performs a data processing functions;

(ii) Meets the criteria set out in Note (B) to this chapter including the in-troductory paragraph to that Note; and

(iii) Is not excluded by the provisions of Note 5(E) to this chapter.

They also made reference to the explanatory notes of Chapter 84 provid-ing that a automatic data processing machine may be in the form for system consisting of variable number of specific units. Chapter note 5(E) provides that machine performing a specific function other than data processing and incorporating or working in conjunction with an automatic data processing machine are to be classified in the heading appropriate to their respective functions or failing that, in residual heading. Accordingly they made prayer to set aside the impugned order and allow the revenue's appeal.


5. After carefully considering the submissions made by both the sides, we find that heading 84716060 specifically mentions 'mouse'. We have seen the catalogue placed before us wherein the goods have been described as 'the stealth 3D mouse for two handed operation'. The technical data produced before us shows that the said 3D mouse is standard computer mouse and has been designed by a collaboration of professionals from the mapping and ergonomic design fields. Merely because the said mouse is bigger in size and costlier than the ordinary mouse and also performs other specific functions, the same cannot be held to be a device other than the mouse. As such, we find that the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding the goods to be mouse and classified under heading 84716060 is appropriate. No infirmity can be found in the order, we accordingly, reject the appeal filed by the Revenue.

(Pronounced in the open court)

Equivalent 2012 (278) ELT 0623 (Tri. - Del.)