2002(03)LCX0090

IN THE CEGAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI

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

EMGEE CABLES & COMMUNICATION LTD.

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUS., MUMBAI

Order No. 1002/2002-WZB/C-II, dated 4-3-2002 in Appeal No. C/510/96-Bom.

Advocated By :   Shri H.R. Shetty, Advocate, for the Appellant.

Shri A. Chopra, JDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of ink-jet printer that the appellant imported. It claimed classification of these goods under Heading 84.43 of the tariff. This heading is for “printing machinery, including ink-jet printing machine other than those of heading includes.” The customs was of the view that the goods are correctly classifiable as unit for automatic data processing machine which is covered by Heading 84.71. The objection having been made known to the importer, it waived the issue of written notice and hearing. The Assistant Commissioner, whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), confirmed the classification of the goods under Heading 87.71. Hence this appeal.

2. It is not in dispute that the goods are ink-jet printers. That is how they are described in the invoice that the manufacturer issued and the literature. Therefore, if the classification of the goods under Heading 84.71 is excluded, they would be then classifiable under Heading 84.43. The reason that the counsel for the appellant advances in favour of this claim is based upon the literature put out by the manufacturer, which he says, covers the goods imported. The goods are stated to have been purchased by the appellant on the high seas from Control Print (India) Ltd. who presumably obtained them from the foreign supplier. The description in the invoice issued by the high sea sales seller only described the goods as “Widenbach’s single headed mobile ink-jet printing system.” No details of any model number are furnished. It is therefore not possible for us to conclude that the literature that the appellant refers to relates to these goods at all. We do not therefore consider it necessary to discuss the contents of this literature. It will only suffice to say that the appellant has not produced any evidence to even prima facie rebut the classification determined by the department.

3. Counsel for the appellant did cite a bill of entry filed on 20th August 1999 by Datsons Enterprises. Although the manufacturer shown on this bill of entry is the same as the manufacturer of the goods elsewhere concerned with Wiedenbach Appartebau, it is not possible to say that these goods imported under the bill of entry and the bill of entry of 20-1-1995 are the same as the goods under consideration by us. The classification of these goods in the latter bill of entry under Heading 84.43 therefore would not apply to the goods under consideration. This is, of course, on the assumption that that classification is correct.

4. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

_______

Equivalent 2002 (144) ELT 0666 (Tri. - Mumbai)