Imported monitors designed for use with ADP machines must be classified accordingly under the Customs Tariff, ensuring adherence to proper duty rates as established by regulatory standards.

PER: C J MATHEW

The order, [order-in-appeal no. MUM-CUSTM-AMP-APP-738 to 741/2024-25 dated 26th August 2024] of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai – III, impugned in these appeals of M/s Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt Ltd, had decided four appeals agitating cavil in disposal of disputes over import of ‘M80281FQ AW MVCD-1619 Barco Monitor for Magnetic Resonance Imaging System’ in bills of entry no. 4418121/30.01.2023 and no. 4418125/30.01.2023 – for having rejected applications in each seeking amendments and assessment to duty therein – chargeable to basic customs duty (BCD) at rate corresponding to tariff item 8528 5200 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and ‘integrated tax’ at rate corresponding to serial no. 154 in schedule IV to notification no. 1/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28, [final order no. A/86879/2024 dated 18th November 2024.] June 2017. According to the appellant, the dispute is limited to the ‘integrated tax’ rate applicable, at 18% corresponding to serial no. 384 in schedule III in the same notification as appropriate instead of the charged 28% and, instead of awaiting rectification, already applied for under section 149 of Customs Act, 1962 in letter of 16^th February 2023, as prelude to payment of appropriate duty, had decided to discharge the higher levy, ‘under protest’, against ‘speaking order’ as required under section 17(5) of . The rejection of their request for amendment, by letter dated 11^th April 2023, is cause for two of the appeals while the other two challenge the revision of ‘self-assessed’ duties of customs to ₹25,534.20 purporting to be revised assessment. He placed reliance on the decision² of the Tribunal in Philips India Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Air Cargo Complex (ACC), Mumbai, disposing off appeal, [customs appeal no. 87594 of 2023] against order, [order-in-original CAO no.CC-GSS/10/2023-24 Adj.(I) ACC dated 21st July 2023] of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai which was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

2. According to Learned Counsel for appellant, the impugned goods are ‘computers’ of the appropriate size and was not amenable to the assigned description in schedule IV of the notification. It was further contended that, while designed for use with computers and capable of being connected to computers, that these were not solely or principally so precluded taking of the ambit of serial no. in the rate notification, as declared.

3. We have heard Learned Authorized Representative who took us through the technical details of the imported goods and made references to the findings in the impugned order.

4. The Tribunal, in re Philips India Ltd held that ‘9.3 It could be seen that by applying the GIR 1 - rule at (i) above, the position is made clear that Sub-heading 8528 covers within its scope and ambit, mainly of three broad categories of goods for ascertaining proper classification:

(i) first category is about all the monitors and projectors not incorporating television reception apparatus;

(ii) second category covers television reception apparatus, whether or not incorporating radio-broadcast receivers or sound or video recording or reproducing apparatus, for the display of signals (television sets); and (iii) third category covering apparatus for the reception of television signals, with the display capabilities e.g., Receivers of satellite television broadcasts.

As the impugned goods are related to monitors, the relevant category of items that needed to be closely examined, is the goods covered under the first category. Further, the goods under second and third category are not relevant for the purpose of the present factual matrix of the case. Since, we are not dealing with cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors which use cathode ray tube to form images on the screen, the sub-c