2000(11)LCX0013
IN THE CEGAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI
S/Shri Gowri Shankar, Member (T) and J.N. Srinivasa Murthy, Member (J)
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (ACC), MUMBAI
CASE CITED
Casio India Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2000(06)LCX0234 Eq 2000 (121) ELT 0379 (Tribunal) — Relied on.... [Para 3]
Advocated By : Shri A.C. Sangal, General Manager, for the Appellant.
Shri B.B. Sarkar, JDR, for the Respondent.
[Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - After hearing both the sides on the stay application we have decided to take up the appeal itself for disposal, with the consent of both sides.
2. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification under the customs tariff of the electronic diaries imported by the appellant. These are pocketsize diaries, which have provision for recording telephone numbers, addresses, and are able to perform functions of calculation. The goods were cleared after accepting the classification claimed by the appellant under heading 84.71. Subsequently, the department, in a notice issued under Sec. 28 of the Act, proposed classification under heading 84.70, and recovery of differential duty. The Assistant Commissioner, adjudicating on the notice, held that diaries were classifiable under heading 84.70. This has been confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the appeal.
3. It is the contention of the representative of the appellant that the electronic diary is nowhere specified in the customs tariff. These electronic diaries were shown to be classifiable under heading 8471.00 in the book entitled ‘ITC (HS) Classifications of Export and Import Items’ published in 1996 by the Ministry of Commerce of the Government of India. The Tribunal in its decision in Casio India Co. Ltd. v. CC - 2000 (121) ELT 379 confirmed that this classification is binding on the customs authorities. In any event, the benefit of doubt should go to the importer.
4. We are unable to find any doubt relating to the classification of the goods. Heading 84 reads as follows.
“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.”
5. The goods are clearly not automatic data processing machines, the scope of which has been defined in Note 5 to Chapter 84; nor can they, by any stretch of imagination, be considered to be any of the other goods specified in that heading. They are, equally clearly, covered by the expression “pocket size data recording, reproducing and displaying machines with calculating functions” specified in heading 84.70. The representative of the appellant agrees that their dimensions do not exceed 170 mm x 100 mm, which is the maximum specified in Note 8 to the chapter for pocket size machines.
6. The classification in the publication relied upon by the appellant of the goods under heading 84.71 is thus clearly wrong. (Possibly, this mistake, and we are told, many others in the compilation, arose because it was an attempt made for the first time to find a concordance between the customs tariff and the import policy). The classification in that publication, whether right or wrong, decided by the licensing authority, cannot govern classification under the customs tariff for the purpose of assessment of duty. Such classification is to be governed solely by the classification in the customs tariff. It is a different matter that the classification decided by the licensing authority will bind customs department for the purpose of relating to import trade control, as the Tribunal has held in the decision cited by the appellant.
7. We therefore confirm the order appealed against and dismiss the appeal.
Equivalent 2001 (132) ELT 0783 (Tri. - Mumbai)