2002(03)LCX0186

IN THE CEGAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI

S/Shri Gowri Shankar, Member (T) and G.N. Srinivasan, Member (J)

BLUE STAR LTD.

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, SAHAR AIRPORT, MUMBAI

Order No. 1147/2002-WZB/C-II, dated 28-3-2002 in Appeal No. C/108/R/97-Bom.

Advocated By :   Shri M.J. Nambiar, Consultant, for the Appellant.

Shri J.M. George, JDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification under the customs tariff, and consequently entitled to exemption under Notification 58/88 of goods imported by the appellant, described in the certificate attached to the invoice for the goods as :-

“I²CE system 10 MH_z 8086/8088 support kit for PC host. Includes III086A9D4D 10 MH_z (8086/8088 probe and software), III515 (Instrumentation chassis and emulation base module) and III520B954D (Host Interface module and host software).”

2. The claim for refund of the duty paid by the appellant on the ground that the goods should be classified under Heading 84.71 and therefore entitled to the exemption under Notification 58/88 has been dismissed by the Assistant Collector. On appeal from this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on the ground that “there is no evidence to show that the submissions being made before him were made before the assessing officer and that noting that the assessment was finalised on their own request.”

3. We have heard the Representative for the appellant on the merits of the case. His contention is that the product imported by the appellant is emulator, and hence is to be classifiable under Heading 84.71. He took us through dictionaries of computing and the product literature of the put out by Intel, its manufacturer. Emulation is defined in the Dictionary of Computing published by Oxford University Press in 1983 as “the exact execution on a given computer of a program written for a different computer, accepting the identical data and producing the identical results.” This by itself does not help in defining the nature of the hardware that has been imported or does not provide sufficient basis to say that the hardware that the appellant imported (there is no dispute about software) is classifiable under Heading 84.71. The literature produced by the appellant mentioned that a host development system with an emulator offers a stand-alone computer; development software such as assemblers and compilers; prototype hardware interface; mapping capability and break and trace capability. All that we can conclude from this is that an emulator, used with the host development system, would include a computer. It is not possible to say that an emulator by itself consists either of automatic data processing system specified in Heading 84.71, or any one of the units. Therefore it would not be correct to say every piece of hardware that may be used in or in relation to computing necessarily be classifiable under Heading 84.71. The certificate of the Department of Electronics on which the appellant relied also is not precise enough to offer assistance to the appellant. It says that the Department of Electronics has no objection to the import of “following computer items”. There is therefore entirely insufficient material to accept the classification claimed under Heading 84.71 and hence their eligibility to the exemption contained in the notification which is for goods falling under Heading 84.71. We therefore find no reason to interfere.

4. Appeal dismissed.

Equivalent 2002 (144) ELT 0205 (Tri. - Mumbai)