2000 (8) TMI 415 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of Risograph Printers 5600D under the Customs Tariff Act.
2. Binding nature of opinions and certifications from competent authorities.
3. Principal function of the Risograph Printers.
4. Use of past customs practices and precedent.
5. Relevance of HSN Explanatory Notes.
6. Burden of proof on the taxing authorities.
7. Penalty and redemption fine imposed.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Risograph Printers 5600D:
The primary issue is whether the Risograph Printers 5600D should be classified under sub-heading 8443.19 as a Printing Machine or under sub-heading 8472.90 as an Office Machine. The Collector of Customs classified it under 8472.90, which was contested by the appellant, M/s. Pioneer International.

2. Binding Nature of Opinions and Certifications:
The appellant argued that the opinion rendered by the Director General of Technical Development (DGTD) and the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports (CCI&E) is binding on the Customs Authorities. They cited precedents such as Maya Enterprises v. CCE and GEM Electro Mechanical Pvt. Ltd v. C.C., Calcutta, which support the binding nature of such opinions. However, the Collector and the Tribunal noted that the opinions did not mention the specific model number of the Risograph Printers 5600D, thus limiting their applicability to the present case.

3. Principal Function of the Risograph Printers:
The appellant contended that the principal function of the Risograph Printers is printing, thus warranting classification under 8443.19. They provided definitions and technical details to support their claim. Conversely, the respondent argued that the machine primarily reproduces copies from originals, lacking the mechanism to print original matter, thereby fitting the classification of a duplicating machine under 8472.90.

4. Use of Past Customs Practices and Precedent:
The appellant mentioned that various port authorities had previously cleared similar printers under Heading 84.43 and argued that Customs Authorities are bound by past practices. However, the Tribunal emphasized that each case must be evaluated on its own merits, especially when specific model numbers and detailed functionalities are involved.

5. Relevance of HSN Explanatory Notes:
The Tribunal referred to the HSN Explanatory Notes, which state that Heading 84.43 covers machines used for printing by means of type, printing blocks, plates, or cylinders and excludes stencil duplicating machines. The Tribunal found that the Risograph Printers 5600D do not have the mechanism to print original matter and instead reproduce copies, thus fitting the description of a duplicating machine under Heading 84.72.

6. Burden of Proof on the Taxing Authorities:
The appellant argued that the burden of proof lies with the taxing authorities to show that the item is taxable as claimed by them, citing U.O.I. v. Garware Nylons Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the Collector had provided specific findings and detailed reasons for classifying the machine under 8472.90, thus meeting the burden of proof.

7. Penalty and Redemption Fine Imposed:
The Tribunal considered the penalties imposed by the Collector-Rs. 26 lakhs penalty and Rs. 5 lakhs redemption fine-harsh. Given the absence of clandestine acts or willful manipulation by the appellant, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 2 lakhs and the penalty to Rs. 8 lakhs.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the classification of the Risograph Printers 5600D under sub-heading 8472.90 of the Customs Tariff Act as office machines. The appeal was disposed of with a reduction in the penalties imposed.