ORDER
P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. There is a demand of duty of over Rs. 16 lakhs on the appellants as per the impugned order on the basis of classification of the machine imported by them, namely, “Inkjet Printer VT II 92 Series” under Customs Tariff Pleading No. 84.43 The appellants claim classification of the goods under CTH 84.71. Their Counsel, today, claims strong prima facie case on the strength of certain Chapter Notes coupled with the manufacturer’s catalogue. He has also sought to rely on case law. Ld. DR raises certain objections with reference to the catalogue produced today. He also seeks to defend the impugned order.
2. We have considered the submissions. The appellants want the printer to be classified under Heading 84.71 on the ground that it satisfies the conditions of Note 5 to Chapter 84 of the Tariff Schedule. Ld. Counsel has specifically referred to paragraphs (B)(b) and (B)(c) of Note 5 as well as Para (D) of the said Note. After going through these provisions of the tariff, we note that printers which satisfy the conditions of Paragraphs (B)(b) and (B)(c) are to be classified as units of – Heading 84.71. According to paragraph (B)(b), such a unit must be connectable to Central Processing Unit (CPU) directly or indirectly. According to paragraph (B)(c), it should be able to accept or deliver data in a form (codes or signals) which can be used by the system. There seems to be no dispute of the fact that the imported printer can accept data in the form of codes or signals. Apparently, the only dispute is whether the printer is connectable to a CPU directly or indirectly. After seeing the catalogue, we find that Model “V II 92” of Inkjet Printer is connectable to a CPU. Prima facie, the classification claimed by the assessee (Heading No. 84.71) for the imported machine is supported by the manufacturer’s specifications and the Chapter Notes relied on by the Counsel. Accordingly, we grant waiver of pre-deposit of the aforesaid amount of duty. As regards the prayer for stay, we find that the appellants are also aggrieved by a detention notice issued by the Department. This detention notice dated 1-11-2004 issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Customs) (Group 5A) in the Commissionerate of Customs (Chennai), is for detention of any goods imported by the appellants anywhere in India. After considering the submissions made by both sides in relation to this notice, we think, it is necessary for the ends of justice to stay the operation of this notice to the extent it affects the subject goods, and we do so. There will also be stay of recovery of the duty amount till final disposal of the appeal.
3. At this stage, ld. Counsel is pressing for early disposal of the appeal, saying that subsequent imports of similar machines are also being held up on the above classification issue. Ld. Counsel has produced a copy of a Bill of Entry dated 7-12-2004 covering similar goods namely “Inkjet printer (V II 92 Model)”. The appellants have made out a case for early disposal of the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is directed to be posted to 2-3-2005. Order to be issued by “DASTI”.