9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Classification of Yashica Camera under Customs Tariff Act, 1975
Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved a dispute regarding the classification of a Yashica Camera under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The appellants contended that the camera should be classified under Heading 90.11/12 as a component of Micro-photographic apparatus, while the Department had classified it under Heading 90.07 as a standalone camera. The appellants argued that the camera body was an essential part of a micro-photographic apparatus and should not be classified separately. They highlighted that the camera was invoiced as part of a consignment containing components for microphotography, emphasizing its integration with a microscope for magnified image photography. The appellants supported their argument by referencing technical pamphlets and HSN headings, particularly focusing on the Explanatory Note under 90.12, which described microphotographic apparatus as incorporating a camera for photographic recording of magnified images. They contended that the camera body, even without a lens, was designed for microphotography and should be considered part of a complete assembly under 90.11/12. Additionally, they pointed out that the camera body was not functional independently without the microscope tube and adaptor for microphotography. On the other hand, the Department argued that the Yashica Camera should be classified separately under Heading 90.07 as a photographic camera, distinct from the components classified under 90.11/12. They emphasized that the camera was of a separate make, ordered separately, and had interchangeable lenses, making it a standalone product. They also highlighted that the Explanatory Note under 90.12 excluded separately imported photographic cameras for microphotography. After considering the submissions, the Tribunal analyzed the classification criteria under Chapter Note 2 and Interpretative Rule 2(a). The Tribunal observed that while photographic cameras could be classified under both 90.07 and 90.11/12, the camera in question, without a lens but with interchangeable lens capability, should be classified under the same heading as a complete camera. The Tribunal also noted that the camera's presentation with other microphotography components satisfied the condition for classification under 90.11/12, regardless of separate invoicing or make differences. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the Collector of Customs' order and accepting the appeal. The decision was based on the camera's integration with microphotography components, its purpose for magnified image photography, and its presentation as part of a complete microphotographic apparatus assembly, leading to its classification under Heading 90.11/12.
|
