Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.1. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants stated that the imported goods are 'interface cards' which is a kind of Populated Circuit Board Assembly (PCBA) and forms a part of Packet Optical Transport Switch (POTS). It is used in cloud engine switches providing the function of data packet processing and traffic management on 36 100GE optical ports. He further stated that the imported goods are distinguishable with 'network interface cards' inasmuch as the 'interface cards' works as intermediate component in the network, and it will not initiate or terminate data C/86186/2022 communication; whereas, 'network interface cards' is an interface connecting the computer to transmission medium through LAN connection through RJ45 port, and works as terminal component in the network and all network data will be initiated or terminated by it. In support of their stand they also claimed that they had obtained a technical opinion from Professors of IIT, Delhi. Further, learned Advocate claimed that the description of the goods has been declared in the Bill of Entry correctly as per the product description in the catalogue '36-port 100GE interface card (FD1, QSFP28)' bearing part no. 03024UCT with card name 'CE-L36CQ-FD1' as well as there is no case of undervaluation or any other mis-declaration and thus the order confiscating the imported goods under Section 111(m) ibid, is not sustainable. Thus, he pleaded to set aside the impugned order by allowing their appeals.

(III) PARTS Subject to the general provisions regarding the classification of parts (see the General Explanatory Note to Section XVI), parts of the apparatus, of this heading are also classified here."

In this regard, we find that the Show Cause Notice dated 13.12.2019 alleges at para 4 and 6, that by application of Para II(G) of HSN Explanatory Notes to the heading 8517 covering "other communication apparatus", and as in the present case, the impugned goods 'interface card' refers to Ethernet interface cards which is specifically covered under the category of 'other communication apparatus', and therefore the imported goods are rightly classifiable under CTH 85176290. However, we find that the original authority though quoted such allegation in para 4 of the order, did not give any specific finding or conclusion on this aspect for arriving at the conclusion for classification of goods under CTH 85176290. Similarly, learned Commissioner (Appeals) had also not discussed these aspects for upholding the original order. From the reading of the above HSN Explanatory notes, it is clear that products covered under II(G) category are the apparatus which allows for the connection to a wired or wireless communication network or the transmission or reception of speech or other sounds, images or other data within such a network and such networks include carrier-current line systems, digital-line systems and combinations thereof. In the present case, the imported goods are 'interface cards' for use in cloud engine switches providing the function of data packet processing and traffic management. From the function performed by the 'interface cards', it can be concluded that it cannot form by itself in to a networking system. Thus, it cannot be brought under the scope of 'other communication apparatus'. Further, on the aspect of specific mention of 'network interface cards' i.e., 'ethernet interface cards' these have been distinguished with the imported product 'interface cards' and it has been explained by the appellants through a technical opinion that it works as intermediate component in the network, and it will not initiate or terminate data communication; whereas, 'network interface cards' is an interface connecting the computer to transmission medium through LAN connection through RJ45 port, and works as terminal component in the network and all network data will be initiated or terminated by it. There is no detailed discussion either in the original order or in the impugned appellate order on this aspect and it simply declined to C/86186/2022 examine this aspect on the basis that the technical opinion was given by electrical engineers. Hence, we find that the conclusion arrived in the original order and the impugned appellate order on the classification of imported goods under CTH 85176290 is not legally sustainable.