Holding

The goods are not portable; therefore they must be classified under tariff item 8471 50 00 and valued accordingly.

Summary

The appellants, Hewlett‑Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd., imported all‑in‑one integrated desktop computers and self‑assessed them under tariff item 8471 50 00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During customs examination the goods were re‑classified as tariff item 8471 30 10, a category for "portable" automatic data processing machines weighing not more than 10 kg, and this classification was upheld by the CESTAT. The sole issue before the Supreme Court was whether the goods qualified as "portable" within the meaning of sub‑heading 8471 30, and consequently which tariff item and valuation method should apply. The Court held that portability must be assessed in the context of ADPs, considering weight, dimensions, required accessories, and the ability to be carried in daily transit; the goods’ large diagonal screen, need for a stand and power cable, and lack of protective cases rendered them non‑portable. Accordingly, the burden of proof lay with the customs authorities, which they failed to discharge, and the Court set aside the classification under 8471 30 10, directing valuation under the originally declared 8471 50 00.

Issues considered

Whether the all‑in‑one integrated desktop computers are "portable" within the meaning of tariff item 8471 30 10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
Whether the burden of proof for re‑classification rests on the customs authorities and what the correct tariff classification and valuation method should be.

Legislation cited

Subjects

classificationcustoms dutyportableautomatic data processing machinestariff itemburden of proofvaluationall‑in‑one computercustoms law

Judgment

[2023] 1 S.C.R. 1123 1123

HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD. A
(NOW HP INDIA SALES PVT. LTD.)
v.
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), NHAVA SHEVA
(Civil Appeal No. 5373 of 2019) B
JANUARY 17, 2023
[SURYA KANT AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ.]
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 – Central Excise Act, 1944 –
ss.4A and 4 – Appellants imported certain units of the ‘All-in-one C
integrated Desktop computer’ and classified them under ‘Tariff Item
8471 50 00’ as per the prevalent self-assessment procedure – During
subsequent examination by the Custom Authorities, the concerned
goods were classified under ‘Tariff Item 8471 30 10’, and this
classification was confirmed by various Adjudicating Authorities –
D
Adjudicating Authorities held that the concerned goods were
portable and were thus correctly classified under ‘Tariff Item 8471
30 10’ – Whether the concerned goods are ‘portable’ or not under
‘Tariff Item 8471 30 10’ – Held: Firstly, the diagonal dimension of
the concerned goods being minimum of the length of 18.5 inches
and the same needs to be transported along with the power cable E
as well as the applicable stand in most cases if it is to be mounted –
Secondly, there being no protective case designed by the markets
for daily transport for these concerned goods – Such requirements
make the concerned goods unable to be carried around easily during
daily transit – Therefore, the concerned goods are not ‘portable’ –
F
Since the Customs Authorities wanted to classify the goods
differently, the burden of proof to showcase the same was on them,
which they failed to discharge – Impugned orders set aside, which
classified the concerned goods under ‘Tariff Item 8471 30 10’ –
Valuation of concerned goods for levy of duty be determined under
the initially declared ‘Tariff Item 8471 50 00’. G
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. On a conjoint reading of the relevant material
and inputs, it is explicitly clear that weight cannot be the sole
factor to determine the factum of portability. Instead, the essential
H
1123
1124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A ingredients to logically establish whether an Automatic Data
Processing Machines (ADP) is ‘portable’ are twofold. The first
ingredient is their ability to be carried around easily which includes
all aspects such as weight and their dimensions. This Court must
hasten to add that in appropriate cases, this assessment would
also take into consideration the necessary accessories which are
B
required for safe and efficient usage such as mounted stands or
any power adapters. The second ingredient is that the ADP must
be suitable for daily transit of a consumer and would include
aspects such as durability to withstand frequent commute and
damage protection. An example of the same would be the
C availability of protection cases which allows users to carry the
ADPs in hand or possibility of carrying the same in normal
briefcases or shoulder bags. [Para 18][1134-B-D]
2. On applying these core ingredients to the characteristics
of Concerned Goods, there is no room to doubt that they are not
D ‘portable’. Firstly, the dimensions of the Concerned Goods make
it illogical and unviable for daily transit. While it is true that
classification of the goods must not be usually made on the
advertisement material of the manufacturer, the user guides
produced before this Court showcase that placing the product in
other than the specified orientation could lead to damage to the
E Concerned Goods. The user guides also emphatically highlight
that the Concerned Goods were meant to be used at a fixed place
and contained specifications that made them ideal for being
mounted on a wall. Secondly, the inability of the consumer to carry
these goods around in the absence of any protective case or any
F covering bags, which makes the Concerned Goods vulnerable to
damage during transit. As noted in the literature relied upon
before this Court, the weight was not the sole consideration for
being considered as ‘portable’. For example, there used to be
computers which are now no longer in common use which were
popularly known as ‘luggable’. They used to weigh more than 10
G kilograms. These old predecessors of laptops were designed at
the relevant time to be portable and used to fold up neatly in one
box with a handle. Despite their weight and the size comparable
to small suitcase, they could still be transported, albeit without a
wagon. [Paras 19 and 20][1134-E-H; 1135-A]
H
HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER 1125
OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), NHAVA SHEVA

3. Keeping in view the applicable understanding of the A
element of ‘portable’ as understood in common parlance used in
the trade of ADPs, this Court must hold that the Concerned Goods
are not portable for the reasons that-Firstly, the diagonal
dimension of the Concerned Goods being minimum of the length
of 18.5 inches and the same needs to be transported along with
B
the power cable as well as the applicable stand in most cases if it
is to be mounted and; secondly there being no protective case
designed by the markets for daily transport for these Concerned
Goods. Such requirements make the Concerned Goods unable
to be carried around easily during daily transit. This, thus, hold
that the Concerned Goods are not ‘portable’. [Para 22][1135-D- C
F]
4. It goes without saying that since the customs authorities
wanted to classify the goods differently, the burden of proof to
showcase the same was on them, which they failed to discharge.
Hence under the prevalent self-assessment procedure, the D
classification submitted by the appellants must be accepted. [Para
23][1135-F-G]
CCE v Krishna Carbon Paper Co. (1989) 1 SCC 150;
[1988] 3 Suppl. SCR 12 – relied on.
Mathuram Agrawal v State of MP (1999) 8 SCC 667: [1999] E
4 Suppl. SCR 195; collector of Central Excise, Shillong v
Wood Craft Products Limited (1995) 3 SCC 454 : [1995]
2 SCR 797; Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v Acer
India (P) Ltd. (2008) 1 SCC 382: [2007]11 SCR 558;
Dabur India Ltd. v CCE, Jamshedpur (2005) 4 SCC 9 : F
[2005] 3 SCR 144 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1999] 4 Suppl. SCR 195 referred to Para 8
[1995] 2 SCR 797 referred to Para 12
G
[2007] 11 SCR 558 referred to Para 14
[1988] 3 Suppl. SCR 12 relied on Para 16
[2005] 3 SCR 144 referred to Para 23
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.5373
of 2019. H
1126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A From the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2018 of the Customs,
Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai
in Appeal No.C/272/2012.
With
Civil Appeal No.6715 of 2019.
B
V. Lakshmikumaran, Ms. Charanya Lakshmikumaran, Ms.
Mounica Kasturi, Ms. Apeksha Mehta, Pranav Mundra, Advs. for the
Appellant.
Arijit Prasad, Sr. Adv., Rupesh Kumar, Adit Khorana, O. P. Shukla,
C Ms. Sunita Sharma, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advs.
for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SURYA KANT, J.
1. The question that arises for our consideration pertains to correct
D classification of Automatic Data Processing Machines (hereinafter,
‘ADP’) which are popularly known as ‘All-in-One Integrated Desktop
Computer’ (hereinafter, ‘Concerned Goods’) under the First Schedule
to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter, ‘First Schedule’).
FACTS
E 2. The Appellants imported certain units of the Concerned Goods
and classified them under ‘Tariff Item 8471 50 00’ as per the prevalent
self-assessment procedure. During subsequent examination by the
Custom Authorities, the Concerned Goods were classified under ‘Tariff
Item 8471 30 10’, which was later confirmed by the Assistant
Commissioner of Customs and Commissioner of Customs (Appeal).
F These findings were further affirmed by the Customs, Excise and Service
Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, ‘CESTAT’), West Zonal Bench,
Mumbai vide the impugned judgments dated 19.12.2018 and 24.06.2019.
3. While the rate of duty is same under both the Tariff Items, the
method of computing them is different. Goods under ‘Tariff Item 8471
G 30 10’ attract the application of Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944,
which valued the excisable goods on the basis of percentage of retail
sale price. In contrast, a classification under ‘Tariff Item 8471 50 00’
invites valuation based on price mechanism under Section 4 of Central
Excise Act, 1944 which would have effectively reduced the overall liability
to pay the requisite duty. This difference in liability is the precise reason
H
HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER 1127
OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), NHAVA SHEVA [SURYA KANT, J.]

behind the present dispute regarding classification under the correct Tariff A
Item which calls for adjudication.
4. Before delving into the reasoning of the revenue authorities
and CESTAT, which is more or less identical, it would be appropriate to
reproduce the following relevant parts of the First Schedule :-
Heading/Sub- Description of goods2(2)
1
B
Heading/Tariff Item (1)
8471 Automatic data processing machines and units
thereof; magnetic or optical readers, machines
for transcribing data on to data media in coded
form and machines for processing such data,
not elsewhere specified or
included
￦ 8471 30 - Portable digital automatic data processing
C
machines, weighing not more than 10 kg,
consisting of at least a central processing
unit, a

keyboard and a display

8471 30 10 --- Personal computer D
8471 30 90 --- Other

- Other automatic data processing machines

8471 41 -- Comprising in the same housing at least a central
processing unit and an input and output unit whether
E
or not combined
8471 41 10 --- Micro computer
8471 41 20 --- Large or main frame computer

8471 41 90 --- Other

8471 49 00 -- Other, presented in the form of systems
F
8471 50 00 - Processing units other than those of subheading
8471 41 or 8471 49, whether or not containing in
the same housing one or two of the following types
of unit: storage
units, input units, output units
￦
(Emphasis Applied) G
1
Additional Notes to The Customs Tariff Act 1975, sch 1 states that -
1(a) “Heading”, in respect of goods, means a description in list of tariff provisions
accompanied by a four-digit number and includes all sub-headings of tariff items the
first four-digits of which correspond to that number.
(b) “Sub-heading” “, in respect of goods, means a description in list of tariff provisions
accompanied by a six-digit number and includes all tariff items the first six-digits of H
1128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A 5. Since, the reasoning confirming the classification under ‘Tariff
Item 8471 30 10’ by the adjudicating authorities including CESTAT is
identical, hence, it would be sufficient to discuss the key findings of the
impugned decisions in brevity. These observations are :-
a) The Concerned Goods weighed less than 10 kilogram and were
B easily carried from one place to another. In this respect the CESTAT
relied on dictionary meaning of the word ‘portable’ to hold that the goods
were rightly classified under ‘Tariff Item 8471 30 10";
b) The absence of in-built power source does not render the
Concerned Goods as non-portable;
C c) The dimensions of the Concerned Goods as well as the fact
that it was not foldable did not impact the element of portability;
d) The Concerned goods had a display unit, a touch screen which
could function as a keyboard and thus it fulfilled the description mentioned
under ‘Tariff Item 8471 30 10’.
D
B. CONTENTIONS
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents produced on record. It must be noted that both sides have
not disputed the findings of the adjudicating authorities except in respect
of the aspect of portability of Concerned Goods. Hence, the only limited
E
question that falls for consideration before us in these proceedings is
whether the Concerned Goods are ‘portable’ or not under ‘Tariff Item
8471 30 10’.

which correspond to that number.
(c) “Tariff Item” means a description in list of tariff provisions accompanied by a six-
F
digit number means a description of goods in the list of tariff provisions accompanying
either eight-digit number and the rate of the duty of excise or eight- digit number with
blank in the column of the rate of duty.
2
General Explanatory Notes to The Customs Tariff Act 1975, sch 1 states that -
1. Where in column (2) of this Schedule, the description of an article or group
of articles under a heading is preceded by “-”, the said article or group of articles shall
G be taken to be a sub classification of the article or group of articles covered by the said
heading. Where, however, the description of an article or group of articles is preceded
by “--”, the said article or group of articles shall be taken to be a sub- classification of
the immediately preceding description of the article or group of articles which has “-”.
Where the description of an article or group of articles is preceded by “---” or “----”,
the said article or group of articles shall be taken to be a sub-classification of the
immediately preceding description of the article or group of articles which has “-” or
H “--”.
HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER 1129
OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), NHAVA SHEVA [SURYA KANT, J.]

7. Mr. V Lakshmikumaran, learned counsel for the Appellants, A
has made four key contentions. Firstly, that ‘Tariff Item 8471 30 10’
pertains to class of ADPs which are popularly known as laptops or
notebooks. He has highlighted that the classification under ‘Tariff Item
8471 30 10’ involves an element of ‘functionality’ which is not applicable
in the present case as Concerned Goods are not capable of functioning
B
without an external source of power. Secondly, he contended that
Concerned Goods have been wrongly held to be ‘portable’ by the CESTAT
on the sole aspect that their weight was less than 10 kilograms. He
argued that mere weight cannot be the sole consideration for deciding
whether any good is ‘portable’ or not, and it is necessary to consider
additional aspects such as functionality and ease of transportability which C
is suitable for a mobile lifestyle of the user. Thirdly, he urged that the
CESTAT erroneously relied on the general definition of ‘portable’ given
in dictionaries and instead the same should have been defined in relation
to the class of goods, i.e. ADPs. In this respect, he pointed out that the
relevant ‘Sub-Heading 8471 30’ which entails the condition of being
D
‘portable’ in the description of goods was preceded by a single ‘-’ and
consequently all the goods under the said sub-heading should be taken
as a sub classification of the goods covered by the ‘Heading 8471’.
Finally, to buttress the aforementioned arguments, he highlighted that
the Concerned Goods are not considered as ‘portable’ by the European
Commission’s classification and are also not covered by the ‘Tariff Item E
8471 30 10’ as per the World Customs Organization’s Harmonized System
Explanatory Notes (hereinafter, ‘HSN’). We must also bring to the fore
and appreciate the efforts of learned counsel for the Appellants who
physically demonstrated by setting up one of the sample units of the
Concerned Goods to showcase the aspects of portability involved in
F
present matter.
8. On the contrary, Mr. Arjit Prasad, learned senior counsel for
the Respondent while supporting the observations in the impugned
decisions, put forth two counter arguments. Firstly, that since the word
‘portable’ is nowhere defined in the statute, it should be interpreted on
the principle of general parlance. In other words, he submitted that the G
dictionary meaning of the word ‘portable’ is sufficient to resolve the
dispute regarding its interpretation. Secondly, he maintained that the
legislature’s intention was crystal clear in qualifying the term ‘portable’
by providing the condition in the description that any ADP less than
10Kgs would automatically become portable. In furtherance of this H
1130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A argument, he relied on the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in
Mathuram Agrawal v State of MP3 to urge that the intention of the
legislature has to be discerned from the plain and unambiguous meaning
of the language used in a taxation statute and any other interpretation is
impermissible.
B 9. We now examine these contentions of both parties.
ANALYSIS
10. Before we ponder over the question whether the Concerned
Goods are ‘portable’ or not, it would be appropriate to highlight their key
characteristics which are as follows :-
C
a) The central processing unit is embedded within the display
unit;
b) The display unit is generally a touch screen which can be used
as an input unit also, such as in the capacity of a keyboard or a mouse;
c) The units generally come along with in-built speakers as well
D
as ports for further connectivity including a port for establishing links
with internet network;
d) The diagonal length of the display is at the minimum of 18.5
inches. It may be clarified that presently certain models of the Concerned
Goods even exceed this aspect by having the display’s diagonal length
E as wide as 25 inches while still being weighed under 10 kilograms;4
e) It needs a constant source of external power source to function;
f) It is non-foldable and cannot be carried around in the usual
laptop bags because of its dimensions;
g) The Concerned Goods for efficient functioning need to remain
F in a vertical state and to be tethered to a stand which is provided along
with it or requires support of something else such as a wall. It must be
noted that the user guides brought on record in respect of one of the
models of the Concerned Goods indicate that any other method of usage
including horizontal use was harmful and could cause damage to the
G Concerned Goods.
11. The first aspect which we will address is with respect to the
issue of constant source of power and whether the same is a necessary
3
Mathuram Agrawal v State of MP (1999) 8 SCC 667, para 12.
4
It must be noted that in respect of current market trends, generally the largest display
H for laptops/notebooks is around 17 inches.
HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER 1131
OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), NHAVA SHEVA [SURYA KANT, J.]

characteristic to treat goods as ‘portable’. In this respect, the Appellants A
argued that ‘Tariff Item 8471 30 10’ is only applicable to laptops/notebooks
and that the applicable sub-heading HSN indicated this. The relevant
part of the same reads as follows –
“Subheading 8471.30
This subheading covers portable automatic data processing B
machines weighing not more than 10 kg. These machines,
which are equipped with a flat screen, may be capable of
operating without an external source of electric power and
often have a modem or other means for establishing a link
with a network.”
C
(Emphasis Applied)
12. While it appears well settled that the HSN is to be normally
taken as a safe guide for classifying goods under the First Schedule
because it is based on an internationally recognized ‘harmonized
nomenclature’5, a bare reading of the explanatory note applicable to the D
sub-heading clearly lays out the fact that there is no mandatory condition
for being operable without any external source of power. We are thus
unable to agree with the Appellants that only ADPs with a built-in power
source is necessarily required to be classified under ‘Tariff Item 8471
30 10’. In other words, no element of ‘functionality’ is contemplated for
the purpose of classifying the Concerned Goods as ‘portable’. E
13. The second aspect deals with the question as to whether mere
factum of weighing less than 10 kilograms would be sufficient to classify
the Concerned Goods as ‘portable’ or not. In this respect, it may be seen
that the CESTAT vide its impugned order(s) has relied on the dictionary
meaning which defined ‘portable’ as - “that can be easily carried and F
not permanently fixed in a place”. It then went on to conclude that the
dimensions of the Concerned Goods were not a concern as long as it
could be easily lifted and moved. As noted above, a similar argument
has been raised by learned senior counsel for the Respondent before us
also.
G
14. At the outset, we must note that the adjudicating authorities
while coming to their respective conclusions, especially the Commissioner
of Customs (Appeal) have extensively referred to online sources such
5
Collector of Central Excise, Shillong v Wood Craft Products Limited (1995) 3 SCC
454.
H
1132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A as Wikipedia to support their conclusion. While we expressly acknowledge
the utility of these platforms which provide free access to knowledge
across the globe, but we must also sound a note of caution against using
such sources for legal dispute resolution. We say so for the reason that
these sources, despite being a treasure trove of knowledge, are based
on a crowd-sourced and user-generated editing model that is not
B completely dependable in terms of academic veracity and can promote
misleading information as has been noted by this court on previous
occasions also.6 The courts and adjudicating authorities should rather
make an endeavor to persuade the counsels to place reliance on more
reliable and authentic sources.
C 15. Moving forward, we must now address the issue at hand,
namely, the interpretation of the word ‘portable’ and more so when the
reasoning of the CESTAT solely hinges on the aspect of weight. Such
an approach is apparently erroneous because despite the fact that the
‘portable’ was not defined under the statute, it was incorporated in
‘Sub-Heading 8471 30’ and was preceded by a single ‘-’, which meant
D that classification of goods under the same would be taken as a sub-
classification of the ‘Heading 8471’.
16. In other words, ‘portable’ should have been defined in reference
to the ADPs instead of relying on dictionary meaning which contains all
kinds of hues of associated meanings as held by this Court in CCE v
E Krishna Carbon Paper Co.7. The cited decision also explains the correct
approach to be taken in case when a word is to be defined in context of
any entry under the First Schedule. It thus holds that :–
“10. The trade meaning is one which is prevalent in that
particular trade where the goods is known or traded. If
special type of goods is subject-matter of a fiscal entry then
F
that entry must be understood in the context of that
particular trade, bearing in mind that particular word.
Where, however, there is no evidence either way then the
definition given and the meaning following (sic flowing) from
particular statute at particular time would be the decisive
G test.” 8
(Emphasis Applied)
6
Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v Acer India (P) Ltd. (2008) 1 SCC 382,
para 17.
7
CCE v Krishna Carbon Paper Co. (1989) 1 SCC 150, para 6.
8
H ibid, para 10.
HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER 1133
OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), NHAVA SHEVA [SURYA KANT, J.]

17. In our considered opinion, the word ‘portable’ should have A
been interpreted in the context of ADPs. In this regard, relevant technical
and commercial literature has been perused by us. On a minute analysis
thereof, we deem it appropriate to extract the following relevant material:-
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers defines
‘portable computer’ as - B
“A personal computer that is designed and configured to
permit transportation as a piece of handheld luggage”9
The Dictionary of Computer and Internet Terms defines it as -
“able to be carried around. A portable computer is larger C
than a laptop computer, but is still easily movable”10
The Oxford Dictionary of Computer Science defines ‘portable’ in
respect of computers as -
“A computer that can be simply carried from one place to D
another by one person. They cannot necessarily be used in
transit. Examples include laptop computers.”11
The Microsoft Computer Dictionary also provides a definition along
with an illustrative chart depicting various types of ‘portable computers’–
“Any computer designed to be moved easily. Portable E
computers can be characterized by size and weight.”12
Type Approximate Power Comments
weight source
Transportable 15–30 lb. House current Sometimes called luggable;
usually has floppy and hard
drives; standard CRT F
screen.
Laptop 8–15 lb. House Can be held on the lap;
Current or usually has a floppy drive;
batteries uses flat LCD or plasma
screen.

9
G
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE Standard Computer
Dictionary (1990) 155.
10
Douglas A. Downing and others, Dictionary of Computer and Internet Terms (10th
edn, Barron’s Educational Series 2009) 374.
11
Andrew Butterfield and Gerard Ekembe Ngondi (eds), Oxford Dictionary of
Computer Science (7th edn, OUP 2016).
12
Alex Blanton (ed), Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th edn, 2002) 412-413. H
1134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

screen.
A Ultralight 2–8 lb. Batteries or Easy to carry in a briefcase;
transformer sometimes uses RAM drive
pack or EPROM instead of
floppy or hard drive;
thinner models are known
as notebook computers.
Handheld Less than 2 lb. Batteries or Also called palmtop or
transformer palm- sized; can be held in
pack one hand.
B
18. On a conjoint reading of the relevant material and inputs, it is
explicitly clear that weight cannot be the sole factor to determine the
factum of portability. Instead, the essential ingredients to logically establish
whether an ADP is ‘portable’ are twofold. The first ingredient is their
ability to be carried around easily which includes all aspects such as
C
weight and their dimensions. We must hasten to add that in appropriate
cases, this assessment would also take into consideration the necessary
accessories which are required for safe and efficient usage such as
mounted stands or any power adapters. The second ingredient is that
the ADP must be suitable for daily transit of a consumer and would
D include aspects such as durability to withstand frequent commute and
damage protection. An example of the same would be the availability of
protection cases which allows users to carry the ADPs in hand or
possibility of carrying the same in normal briefcases or shoulder bags.
19. On applying these core ingredients to the characteristics of
E Concerned Goods, there is no room to doubt that they are not ‘portable’.
Firstly, the dimensions of the Concerned Goods make it illogical and
unviable for daily transit. While it is true that classification of the goods
must not be usually made on the advertisement material of the
manufacturer, the user guides produced before us showcase that placing
the product in other than the specified orientation could lead to damage
F to the Concerned Goods. The user guides also emphatically highlight
that the Concerned Goods were meant to be used at a fixed place and
contained specifications that made them ideal for being mounted on a
wall.
20. Secondly, the inability of the consumer to carry these goods
G around in the absence of any protective case or any covering bags,
which makes the Concerned Goods vulnerable to damage during transit.
As noted in the literature relied upon before us, the weight was not the
sole consideration for being considered as ‘portable’. For example, there
used to be computers which are now no longer in common use which
H
HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER 1135
OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), NHAVA SHEVA [SURYA KANT, J.]

were popularly known as ‘luggable’. They used to weigh more than 10 A
kilograms. These old predecessors of laptops were designed at the
relevant time to be portable and used to fold up neatly in one box with a
handle. Despite their weight and the size comparable to small suitcase,
they could still be transported, albeit without a wagon.
21. Furthermore, we must also use this opportunity to highlight B
the impact of technological advancement on law. It’s a matter of fact
that at the time when the relevant entries of the First Schedule came
into effect, weight was definitely an important criterion for deciding
whether any ADPs was ‘portable’. Scientific progress has greatly
reduced the weight associated with high performance in the context of
ADPs. It is not surprising that the advent of LED technology, faster C
microchips, etc. has made it possible for mobile phones to have
performance specifications which merely a decade ago was possible
only on high end laptops. We must therefore be cognizant of such an
impact on the consumer’s understanding of any good or trade.
22. Keeping in view the applicable understanding of the element D
of ‘portable’ as understood in common parlance used in the trade of
ADPs, we must hold that the Concerned Goods are not portable for the
reasons that- Firstly, the diagonal dimension of the Concerned Goods
being minimum of the length of 18.5 inches and the same needs to be
transported along with the power cable as well as the applicable stand in E
most cases if it is to be mounted and; secondly there being no protective
case designed by the markets for daily transport for these Concerned
Goods. Such requirements make the Concerned Goods unable to be
carried around easily during daily transit. We, thus, hold that the Concerned
Goods are not ‘portable’.
F
23. It goes without saying that since the customs authorities
wanted to classify the goods differently, the burden of proof to showcase
the same was on them, which they failed to discharge.13 Hence under
the prevalent self-assessment procedure, the classification submitted by
the Appellants must be accepted.
G
CONCLUSION
24. In light of the abovementioned discussion, we allow the appeals
and set aside the impugned orders which classified the Concerned Goods
13
Dabur India Ltd. v CCE, Jamshedpur (2005) 4 SCC 9.
H
1136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A under ‘Tariff Item 8471 30 10’. It is directed that valuation of the
Concerned Goods for levy of the duty be determined under the initially
declared ‘Tariff Item 8471 50 00’. All necessary consequences shall
follow.
25. The appeals are disposed of along with any pending applications
B in the above terms.

Ankit Gyan Appeals allowed.
(Assisted by : Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)

C

D

E

F

G

H