Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Compuage Infocom Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs ... on 6 September, 2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH CHENNAI Appeal No.C/349/2008 [Arising out of Order-in-Original No.7046/2008 dt. 10.1.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai] Compuage Infocom Ltd. Appellant Versus Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Import) Chennai Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocate For the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) For the Respondent CORAM :
Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Date of hearing / decision : 06.09.2017 FINAL ORDER No. 41994 / 2017 Per B. Ravichandran The appellant is aggrieved by the order dt. 10.1.2008 of Commissioner of Customs (Import) Custom House, Chennai.
2. Appellant imported and filed Bill of Entry for clearance of External VGA Box. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the classification of the said product and also correct valuation for duty purpose. Appellant claimed classification under Chapter Tariff Heading 84733030 as other mounted printed circuit boards under the main Heading Parts and accessories suitable for use solely or principally with machines of Heading 8469 to 8472, whereas the Revenue entertained a view that the impugned goods are to be classified under Heading 85299090 as others under the main heading "Parts suitable for use solely or principally with apparatus of Heading 8525 to 8528. The impugned order decided classification and valuation of the impugned goods. The original authority relying on HSN Explanatory Note for the scope of product Heading 8528 held that the impugned goods should be classified under Chapter 85 and not Chapter 84. On the valuation, original authority held that the appellant themselves imported identical consignment through Nhava Sheva Customs with a value of US$ 14.63 and accordingly the value declared in Chennai of US$ 13.35 was rejected and reassessed on the basis of value assessed at Nhava Sheva port.
3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the nature and function of the impugned goods are correctly captured in the impugned order. On this, there is no dispute. Original authority clearly records that impugned items are nothing but plug and play devices which require to be connected to the computer monitor to make it operational. From the technical literature recorded in the impugned order as well as submissions made by ld. counsel, it is clear that the impugned goods cannot perform with a TV monitor. In other words, the items are solely usable with computer monitor. It can work even without the help of CPU. It makes TV signals displayable in the computer monitor. On these basic facts, we find that it can never be considered as part and accessory solely usable with a video monitor. The reliance placed on HSN is not relevant to resolve the classification in the present case. When the impugned goods cannot be used solely or principally with the video or TV monitor, the same cannot be classified as part or accessory of such items. Admittedly, the tuner boxes are solely or principally used with computer monitor only. Accordingly, we find that classification under Chapter 84 is more appropriate than under Chapter 85. However, we note that the classification adopted by the appellant under sub heading 84733030 cannot be proper as the said sub heading deals with other mounted printed circuit boards. The present impugned goods are not mounted printed circuit boards. They are actually External VGA Box and not simple circuit boards. However, the main heading 8473 is suitably correct.
4. Regarding the valuation of the imported goods, we note that the impugned order records that appellant themselves imported similar items through Nhava Sheva three months before the present consignment. The authority reiterated that value difference of US$ 1.40 cannot be accepted and since goods are identical, applying Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules reassessed the same at unit price of US$ 14.63. We note that for rejection of transaction value adequate and proper reason has to be adduced by the assessing officer. In the present case, the impugned goods were imported three months after import through Nhava Sheva. Considering these are electronic items and price variation is in the range is only about 10%, we hold that there is no justification recorded in the original authority order for rejection and redetermination of assessable value.
5. In view of above discussion and analysis, we find that the impugned order is not sustainable. Accordingly the same is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(dictated and pronounced in court)
(B. Ravichandran) (Sulekha Beevi C.S)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
gs
5
Appeal No.C/349/2008