9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 356 - AT - CustomsClassification of imported goods - Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Cameras - to be classified under CTH 8525 8010 or under CTH 8525 8090? - HELD THAT - A close look at the above Bills-of-Entry reveals that there are differences as regards the descriptions of the imported goods are concerned. In any case, there is no dispute that the appellant itself had classified under CTH 8525 8090 in its Bill-of-Entry under dispute and thereby effectively prevented the Revenue from questioning further. From the HSN Note read with the Customs Tariff Heading 8525, it is found that there is no entry specifically for CCTV cameras and it is nowhere even hinted that CCTV cameras, which according to the appellant are neither digital cameras nor video camera recorders, would fall under the category of television cameras itself and hence, this argument of the assessee cannot be accepted. For these reasons, they cannot be classified under television camera, but rightly under Others for the period in dispute, since we cannot add or substitute our views/opinions, to negate Revenue s classification, just to go with appellant s claim which is based only on arguments. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues: Classification of CCTV cameras under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 8525 8010 or 8525 8090, Burden of proof on taxing authorities, Interpretation of HSN Explanatory Note, Dispute over classification in Bills-of-Entry
Classification of CCTV cameras under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 8525 8010 or 8525 8090: The appellant filed a Bill-of-Entry for CCTV cameras of Korean origin, classified them under CTH 8525 8010 at a nil rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD). However, the Adjudicating Authority reclassified them under CTH 8525 8090 and charged 15% BCD. The appellant argued that CCTV cameras should be classified as television cameras under CTH 8525 8010, supported by the Harmonized Commodity Description and coding system of Korea and a certificate of origin. The Departmental Representative contended that CCTV cameras do not fit the categories of transmission apparatus or digital cameras, thus should be classified under "Others" in CTH 8525 8090. The Tribunal found no specific entry for CCTV cameras in the Customs Tariff, rejecting the appellant's argument and upholding the reclassification under CTH 8525 8090. Burden of proof on taxing authorities: The appellant emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the taxing authorities, requiring more than mere assertions for classification. Despite citing similar classifications by Delhi Customs and the supplier's certificate of origin, the Tribunal ruled that the appellant's argument based solely on assertions was insufficient to override the Revenue's classification. Interpretation of HSN Explanatory Note: The Tribunal considered the HSN Explanatory Note and found no indication that CCTV cameras should be classified as television cameras under CTH 8525 8010. While the appellant argued that CCTV cameras did not fall under digital cameras or video camera recorders, the Tribunal maintained that without a specific provision for CCTV cameras, they should be classified under "Others" in CTH 8525 8090. Dispute over classification in Bills-of-Entry: The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the descriptions of goods in different Bills-of-Entry filed by the appellant, with some classified under CTH 8525 8010 and others under 8525 8090. The appellant's self-classification under CTH 8525 8090 in the disputed Bill-of-Entry prevented the Revenue from further questioning the classification. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, emphasizing that they cannot substitute their views to alter the Revenue's classification based solely on the appellant's arguments. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the reclassification of CCTV cameras under CTH 8525 8090, emphasizing the lack of a specific entry for CCTV cameras in the Customs Tariff and the insufficiency of the appellant's arguments to override the Revenue's classification. The burden of proof on taxing authorities, interpretation of the HSN Explanatory Note, and discrepancies in the appellant's Bills-of-Entry were all considered in the judgment, leading to the rejection of the appeal.
|
