Acer India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import) (CESTAT Chennai)
Introduction: The recent order from CESTAT Chennai has granted relief to Acer India Pvt. Ltd., upholding the classification of their video projectors under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 85286100. The appeal contested the lower authority’s decision to classify the goods differently, thereby denying certain customs exemptions.
Detailed Analysis: Acer India filed a Bill of Entry in 2013 for ‘Data Projector Model X 122H DLP XGA Projector 270 3D.’ The classification claimed by Acer under CTH 85286100 sought customs exemptions based on Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. The lower authority rejected this classification, placing the goods under CTH 852869 and denying the claimed benefits.
In the recent CESTAT order, the tribunal reviewed technical specifications, including native aspect ratio, contrast ratio, brightness, and native resolution. Acer argued that the projectors were principally used for data projection, connected to laptops or desktop computers, making them eligible for exemption.
The appellant referred to various precedents, including cases involving BenQ, Epson, and Dell, where similar technical specifications led to the classification under CTH 85286100. The argument emphasized that the principal use of the projectors with computers justified the claimed classification.
The tribunal considered the ‘common parlance test’ and ‘commercial usage test’ but also acknowledged the relevance of technological capabilities in determining the intended use. Referring to a previous decision in Acer India’s case, the tribunal held that projectors principally used for data projection are classifiable under CTH 85286100.
Conclusion: In line with previous decisions and judicial discipline, the CESTAT Chennai set aside the impugned order, classifying Acer India’s video projectors under Heading 85286100. This classification entitles Acer India to customs exemptions as per Notification No. 24/2005-Cus dated 1.3.2005. The decision provides clarity on the classification of data projectors with specific technical specifications.
Read the full text of the CESTAT Chennai order for a comprehensive understanding of the case.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER
This appeal is filed by the appellant against Order in Appeal C. Cus. II No. 137/2014 dated 31.10.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals – II), Chennai. (‘impugned order’)
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed Bill of Entry dated 16.2.2013 for clearing the goods declared as ‘Data Projector Model X 122H DLP XGA Projector 270 3D with carrying case’. The appellants claimed classification under Customs Tariff Heading (herein after referred to as CTH) 85286100 as projectors of a kind solely or principally used in an automatic data processing system of heading 8471 and exemption from basic customs duty in terms of Notification No. 24/2005-Cus dated 1.3.2005 (Sl. No. 17) and concessional rate of additional duty of customs at 12 % in terms of Notification No. 2/2008- CE (Sl. No. 63). After due process of law, the lower authority rejected the classification as claimed by the appellant and classified the goods under CTH 852869 and denied the benefit of Notification No. 24/2005. Aggrieved against the said order, appellants preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the order impugned herein rejected the appeal and upheld the order passed by the lower authority. Hence the appellant is before this Tribunal.
2.1 No cross-objection has been filed by the respondent-department.
3. Learned counsel Shri Rohan Muralidharan appeared for the appellant and Shri N. Satyanarayanan, learned AR appeared for the respondent.
3.1 The learned counsel Shri Rohan Muralidharan submitted that Data Projectors- Model X1220h DLP XGA Projector 270 3D imported by them seeking classification under CTH 8528 6100 at Nil rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) as per Notification No. 24/2005-Cus dated 1.3.2005. The product had the following technical/ product specifications:
