In re Endress+Hauser (India) Pvt. Ltd. (CAAR Mumbai)
Classification of Electromagnetic Flowmeter, Thermal Mass Flowmeter,Ultrasonic Flowmeter, Vortex flowmeter, capacitance point levels measuring device
It appears that Id. Commissioner (Appeals) has come to the conclusion that the final product manufactured by the appellant is not merely a measuring instrument and it is in fact a part of the automatic regulating or controlling apparatus under heading 90.32. The appellate order also considers the catalogue submitted by the appellant of products and came to the conclusion that these devices contain sensors, microprocessors, transmitters, amplifiers, relays etc. along with software and that such devices also have inbuilt software known as HART PROFIBUS PA/DP, Foundation Fieldbus and others which makes the resultant product suitable for two-way communication and process control. A conclusion has also been drawn that these devices have time-saving local operation systems without additional software and hardware and also have integrated web servers, and therefore, can convert analogue signals into digital or electrical signals which are amplified further to desired strength and then are transmitted to process controller. Therefore, it has been held that the final equipment is suggested to have a facility of the configuration of parameters to be controlled and the parts and accessories imported by the appellant are to be used for sophisticated functional units which directly participate in process control. On the basis of the above understanding, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the classification of Liquiphant and other flowmeters and has also denied the benefit of exemption. However, I am unable to agree with the conclusions of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in holding that the imported goods were parts and accessories for the manufacture of automated process control systems. As I have already observed earlier in this ruling, classification has to be decided on the basis of the state of goods at the time of import and any subsequent activity shouldn’t influence the classification decision. This also is the view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Sony India reported at 2008 (231) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.) apart from the ruling in the case of M/s Dunlop India vs UOI — 1983 (13) ELT 1566 (SC) cited by the applicant. Therefore, I am unable to agree with the conclusions of the Id. Commissioner (Appeals) and hold that even though it is possible that some of the flowmeters proposed to be imported by the applicant can be used in a system to control and regulate process parameters, these flowmeters, by themselves, are not automatic controlling and regulating apparatuses.
In view of my aforesaid discussions, I rule that the instruments/devices under consideration merit classification under heading 90.26 and more specifically, devices listed at Sr. No. 1 to 20 of Table 1 under subheading 90261010 of the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and devices at Sr. No. 21 of the said table under subheading 90261020 of the first schedule to the said act.
