2003(04)LCX0055

IN THE CEGAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI

S/Shri Krishna Kumar, Member (J) and C. Satapathy, Member (T)

COMMISSIONER OF CUS., MUMBAI

Versus

VIKING INTEGRATION PROJECTS (P) LTD.

Order Nos. 629-630/2003-WZB/C-III, dated 3-4-2003 in Appeal No. C/787/2002-Mum.

REPRESENTED BY :      Shri Virag Gupta, JDR, for the Appellant.

Shri G.B. Yadav, Advocate, for the Respondent.

[Order per : C. Satapathy, Member (T)]. - This is a departmental appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding video monitors for sinoscopes to be classifiable under Heading 90.18 of the Customs Tariff.

2.  Shri Virag Gupta, learned JDR appearing for Revenue states that video monitors are to be classified under Heading 85.28 as the same is specifically covered therein. He also states that according to General Interpretative Rules (GIR) 3(a), the heading which provides the most specific description has to be preferred to other headings providing more general description. According to him, the Commissioner (Appeals) is not correct in applying GIR 3(c) which is lower down in the hierarchy. Moreover, the classification of goods, he says, has to be according to characteristics of the goods and not according to their use. Shri Virag Gupta, learned JDR also states that according to the alphabetical index prepared by the World Customs Organization at Brussels, video monitors are clearly indicated to be classifiable under Heading 85.28.

3. Shri G.B. Yadav, learned Advocate for the respondents supports the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and states that there is no exclusion for video monitors under Heading 90.18 and therefore video monitors which are used along with sinoscope should be classified under Heading 90.18. He also states that the same Commissionerate has earlier classified video monitors for other equipments under Heading 90.18 though he was not able to provide details of the same.

4. After hearing rival submissions and perusal of case records, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has in paragraph two of his finding has held that the impugned goods are covered under both sub-headings 8528.21 and 9018.19, and hence he has applied GIR 3(c) and classified the same under sub-heading 9018.19 which appears numerically later. However, we find that in the last paragraph of his order he has held that the impugned goods are correctly classifiable under sub-heading 9018.90. As such, the impugned order is not internally consistent. We find that sub-heading No. 9018.19 covers other electro diagnostic apparatus whereas sub-heading 9018.90 covers other instruments and apparatus under the broad heading of 90.18 which covers instruments and appliances used in medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences. It is also a fact that video monitor is specifically mentioned under Heading No. 85.28 with two sub-headings 8528.21 for colour video monitor and 8528.22 for black and white and other monochrome video monitor. Video monitor is used for display of video signals from other equipments and apparatus. However, this cannot by itself be a reason to classify video monitors under another heading appropriate to such instruments or apparatus when specifically there is a separate classification provided for video monitors without any exclusion.

5. GIR 1 itself states that classification shall be determined according to the terms of a heading. GIR 3(a) states that the heading which provides most specific description shall be preferred to a heading providing a more general description. A combined reading of GIR 1 and GIR 3(a), leaves no doubt that all video monitors have to be classified under Heading 85.28. The Commissioner (Appeals) has applied GIR 3(c) which says that only when goods cannot be classified with reference to GIR 3(a) or GIR 3(b) then they have to be classified under the heading which occurs in last numerical order. In the instant case, the impugned goods can be classified under Heading 85.28 applying GIR 3(a). Therefore, Commissioner (Appeals) is not correct in applying GIR 3(c)

6. In view of the foregoing, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order-in-appeal and restoring the order-in-original.

7. Department’s appeal is allowed.

Equivalent 2003 (155) ELT 0179 (Tri. - Mumbai)