The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that specially designed microcuvettes used with a diagnostic analyser are classifiable as parts of an analytical instrument under customs tariff item 9027 9090. Their disposable nature does not, by itself, make them general plastic articles.
The Bench of P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) examined how the imported goods functioned in the analyser. It found that their dimensions, configuration, material and optical properties were specifically engineered to make them suitable for calibration and spectrophotometric analysis. Those features distinguished the goods from ordinary plastic containers or laboratory vessels.
Buy Now: 100 Judgements That Importer Exporter Must Know
The appellant/assessee has challenged the order that had reclassified its imported microcuvettes under tariff item 3926 9099 and confirmed a differential customs duty demand of ₹2.49 crore. The Tribunal set aside that order, along with its consequential interest, confiscation and penalty findings.
The appellant/assessee imported goods described as “Integra Microcuvetten, Micro Cuvette Segment” and allied items for use with its Cobas c111 Analyser. It classified the goods under tariff heading 9027 as parts of instruments used for physical or chemical analysis. According to the order, the goods covered one bill of entry dated December 15, 2018, and 361 other bills of entry, with a total assessable value of ₹25,38,87,397.
During a post-clearance audit, the Customs Department took the view that the cuvettes were disposable laboratory consumables. It proposed classifying them as other articles of plastic under tariff item 3926 9099, which would attract a higher basic customs duty. An audit letter initially proposed differential duty of ₹2,49,79,413.
After issuing a show-cause notice, the adjudicating authority confirmed a differential duty demand of ₹2,49,69,513, with interest. It also imposed a redemption fine of ₹2 crore and an equivalent penalty of ₹2,49,69,513 under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The assessee challenged that order before CESTAT.
The assessee argued that the imported goods were far more than plastic vessels for holding samples. The cuvettes were designed for the Cobas c111 Analyser, in which samples and reagents are processed and light passes through the cuvette to enable measurement. Their dimensions, material and optical characteristics, it submitted, affect calibration and the accuracy of the test results.
The company said the analyser could not carry out its intended diagnostic analysis without a suitable cuvette. It relied on the tariff rules governing parts of Chapter 90 instruments and argued that the general entry for plastic articles could not displace the classification appropriate to the goods’ specialised function.
The Department maintained that the cuvettes were separately supplied, used up during testing and did not form permanent components of the analyser. On that basis, it argued that they were laboratory consumables rather than parts of an analytical instrument.
The Tribunal also noted that the Department had not established any practical use for the goods with instruments other than the Cobas c111 Analyser, or any general use as plastic articles.
In reaching its conclusion, the Bench referred to its recent ruling in Syndicate Diagnostics (P) Ltd., which concerned specially designed cuvettes for another analytical system. It applied Note 2(b) to Chapter 90, under which qualifying parts and accessories suitable for use solely or principally with a particular kind of instrument are classified with that instrument. Permanent physical attachment is not required under that note.
The Bench rejected the proposition that disposal after use necessarily rules out classification as a part. The relevant inquiry, it said, concerns the goods’ objective characteristics, their role in the machine’s intended operation and their suitability for use with that machine.
CESTAT held that the imported microcuvettes were classifiable under tariff item 9027 9090, as the assessee had declared, rather than under tariff item 3926 9099 as plastic articles. It therefore set aside the adjudication order and held that the questions of interest, confiscation and penalty did not arise. The assessee was found eligible for consequential relief in accordance with law.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
