HCL LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CLASSIFICATION of the machines known as Risograph, which are imported by the appellant M/s. HCL Limited, is the issue involved in the present appeal. The question is as to whether Risograph is an office machine having duplicating function and thus to be classified under sub - heading 8472.90 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or is it a printing machine to fall under sub -heading 8443.50. The main chapter under which both the sub -headings fall is Chapter 84 which deals with 'Machinery and mechanical appliances'. Sub -heading 84.43 thereof relates to 'Printing machinery; machines for uses ancillary to printing' and various entries under this sub - heading are as follows:

(2.) SUB -heading 84.72, on the other hand, deals with 'Other office machines' and includes duplicating machines. Various entries under this sub -heading read as under:

(3.) AS per the appellant -assessee, Risograph machine is a printing machine which should be covered by sub -heading 8443.50, namely, 'other printing machinery'. On the other hand, the respondent -Revenue has taken the position that it is a specie of duplicating machine and falls under the sub - heading 8472.90, viz. 'Other'. Though under both the sub -headings the import duty is 65%, however, insofar as printing machinery is concerned, by virtue of Notification No. 59/94 -CUS dated March 01, 1994, which includes Chapter Heading 84.43, the duty is to be calculated at the rate of 25% ad valorem. That is the precise reason behind the present lis between the parties