9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 489 - AT - CustomsClassification of imported goods - GoPro HERO5 Black Action Camera - whether the imported goods namely, 'GoPro HERO5 Black' Action Camera is classifiable under CTH 8525 8020 as claimed by the appellant, or under CTH 8525 8090 as affirmed by Revenue? - benefit of N/N. 50/2017 Cus, dated 30.06.2017 - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact on record that the appellant had claimed the benefit of notification dated 30.06.2017, which was purportedly denied by the authorities below on the ground that imported cameras are not capable of recording the images as per the parameters prescribed under notification dated 17.03.2012. On careful examination of both the notifications dated 17.03.2012 and 30.06.2017, it clearly reveals that the later notification was issued by superseding the former notification, wherein the character and features of the digital cameras of Tariff Item 8525 8020 were defined by way of inserting an explanation. For ascertaining the true scope and ambit of the phrase 'supersession', we may refer to the meaning assigned to it in the dictionary. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted that the cameras in question imported by the appellant have functionality of both digital still cameras as well as capable of capturing videos. Thus, the duty exemption provided under notification dated 30.06.2017 for 'digital still image video camera' should be available to the appellant. Reference made by the learned AR for Revenue to the Circular No. 32/2007-Cus, dated 10.09.1997 is incorrect on two folds. Firstly, the said circular was issued with respect to Sl. No. 13 of Notification No. 25/2005-Cus., dated 01.03.2005 and secondly, the said circular evidently referred to the restriction on video recording as per the explanation provided within the notification defining the goods as 'digital still image video camera' - In the case in hand, the appellant had claimed the duty exemption provided under the Notification No. 50/2017-Cus., dated 30.06.2017, where under no condition was prescribed for availment of the benefit. The law is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of TATA TELESERVICES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 2005 (12) TMI 96 - SUPREME COURT that the CBEC circular cannot impose limitation or restriction, which is not provided in the notification itself. There are no merits in the impugned orders in classifying the disputed goods under Tariff Item 8525 8090 and denying the benefit of Notification No. 50/2017 dated 30.06.2017 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the imported 'GoPro HERO5 Black' Action Camera under CTH 8525 8020 or CTH 8525 8090. 2. Eligibility for duty exemption under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus., dated 30.06.2017. Detailed Analysis: 1. Classification of the Imported 'GoPro HERO5 Black' Action Camera: The appellant classified the imported 'GoPro HERO5 Black' Action Camera under CTH 8525 8020 as 'Digital Cameras', claiming that this category covers all digital cameras capable of capturing still and video images. The Revenue, however, classified it under CTH 8525 8090, arguing that the cameras could capture both still and moving images, thus falling under the 'others' category. The Tribunal examined the Customs Tariff Heading, Chapter Note of the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN), and relevant notifications. They noted that the HSN explanatory notes describe digital cameras as those recording images on internal storage devices and having output terminals for viewing on other devices. The Tribunal found that the imported cameras met these criteria, storing images/videos digitally and being capable of both still and video recording. The Tribunal also considered the certificate from the overseas supplier, which confirmed that the cameras were 'digital still image video cameras' capable of capturing both still images and videos. The Tribunal referenced the U.S. Court of International Trade's decision, which classified similar cameras under 8525.80.40, reinforcing that the cameras should be classified under CTH 8525 8020. The Tribunal concluded that the proper classification of the cameras should be under CTH 8525 8020, rejecting the Revenue's classification under CTH 8525 8090. 2. Eligibility for Duty Exemption Under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus., Dated 30.06.2017: The appellant claimed duty exemption under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus., which provides a 'nil' rate of customs duty for 'Digital Still Image Video Cameras' under CTH 8525 8020. The Revenue denied this benefit, referencing the conditions in the previous Notification No. 25/2005-Cus., as amended by Notification No. 15/2012-Cus., which specified certain recording capabilities for digital still image video cameras. The Tribunal noted that Notification No. 50/2017-Cus. superseded the previous notifications and did not include the conditions specified in Notification No. 15/2012-Cus. The Tribunal emphasized that the term 'supersession' indicates that the new notification replaces the old one, making the conditions in the previous notification irrelevant. The Tribunal found that the cameras imported by the appellant met the criteria of 'Digital Still Image Video Cameras' as they could capture both still images and videos. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to the duty exemption under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, classifying the imported 'GoPro HERO5 Black' Action Camera under CTH 8525 8020 and granting the duty exemption under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus., dated 30.06.2017. The appeals were allowed in favor of the appellant with consequential relief as per law.
|
