CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI WEST ZONAL BENCH CUSTOMS APPEAL NO: 86479 OF 2014 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No: 317 (Gr.V A&B)/2014(JNCH)/IMP-298 dated 10^th February 2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai – II.]

Friends Color Images Pvt Ltd Plot No. A-182, TTC Bhairance, MIDC Area Navi Mumbai - 400703 … Appellant versus Commissioner of Customs (Imports)

Jawaharlal Nehru Customs House, Nhava Sheva Tal: Uran, Dist: Raigad - 400707 …Respondent APPEARANCE:

Shri T Viswanathan, Shri Akhilesh Kangzia and Ms Apoorva Parihar, Advocates for the appellant Shri Krishna M Azad, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE MR C J MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) HON’BLE MR AJAY SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

FINAL ORDER NO: 85854/2025 DATE OF HEARING: 02/12/2024 DATE OF DECISION: 02/06/2025 PER: C J MATHEW M/s Friends Color Images Pvt Ltd is aggrieved by differential duty of ₹ 47,48,303 fastened on them under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962, by rejecting assessment at rate of duty corresponding to tariff item 844 3250 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and substitution with rate corresponding to tariff item 8443 3910 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975, along with applicable interest under section 28AB of Customs Act, 1962 on import of ‘OCE Jetstream Printer 1000’ and ‘parts’ valued at ₹ 3,66,29,670 that were self-assessed to duties of customs of ₹ 58,17,525 in bill of entry no. 8823316/ 20.12.2012 which, before clearance for home consumption, but upon objection of ‘proper officer’ empowered under section 47 of Customs Act, 1962 was withheld and, subsequently, confiscated under section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 to be redeemed on payment of fine of ₹ 20,00,000 under section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 while imposed with penalty of ₹ 10,00,000 under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962.

2. It is common ground that both the rival entries are about ‘printing solutions’ with the claim of ‘inkjet printer capable of connecting to an automatic data processing machine or to a network’

corresponding to tariff item 8443 3250 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as best description of impugned goods countered by ‘ink jet printing machine’

corresponding to tariff item 8443 3910 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 elaborated in the finding of original authority that ‘27. From the above, I conclude that the impugned goods are a printing machine (printing system). I find that unlike printers which gets the data inputs from external Automatic Data Processing (ADP) Systems, the impugned item has inbuilt ADP System (SRA MP Controller) supported by ‘PRISMA’ software. From the list of items covered under the impugned B.E. I find that the imported goods cover…..All these items together constitute an inbuilt ADP system. Thus, by virtue of having a inbuilt ADP system which can itself process the data, the impugned printing machine do not require data input from external ADP source. I also find that the printing speed of the impugned item has been given in meters per minute and not in pages per minute as is the case with printers. I also find that the impugned item is suitable for book and newspaper printing which makes it clear that it is a printing machine and not a printer. Last but not the least, I find that the ‘OCE Jetstream Printer’ also has a pre and post production processing capabilities like folding the paper, perforating the paper and also punching holes in the paper. I find that these features are integrated in the impugned goods. In my opinion, no printer can have these features but the printing machine do have these features. This leaves no doubt about the impugned item being a printing machine and not a printer. This view is also supported by the explanatory notes, chapter notes, CBEC circular and the case low (sic) cited above.

which was endorsed, without demur, as ditto finding in order¹ of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II dismissing the challenge mo