2019 (2) TMI 1314 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported goods - TCL Still Image Digital Video Cameras-DV522 - whether classified under CTH 85258030 or otherwise? - benefit of N/N. 25/2005-Cus. Dt. 1.3.2005 (Sr. No. 13) - Held that - Before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), appellant could not able to justify, even though claimed that the primary function of the imported Camcorders DV 552 is meant for recording Still Image and not for video recording, by production of the relevant literature/user manual submitting that the same is unavailable. The Commissioner taking the product description and usage from the internet and also the circular of the board on the issue, came to the conclusion that the imported product is a Video Camera and not eligible to the benefit of said notification. Before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) as well as before this forum, that is in the grounds of appeal, even though the appellant had claimed that the product recorded by them is not a video camera but meant to record still image primarily, however, could not produce any evidence to support their claim - impugned order upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported goods under CTH 85258030 and eligibility for exemption under notification No. 25/2005-Cus.

Classification under CTH 85258030:
The appeal was filed against an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) regarding the classification of imported goods, "TCL Still Image Digital Video Cameras-DV522," under CTH 85258030 and the eligibility for exemption under notification No. 25/2005-Cus. The appellant claimed that the imported goods should be classified as cameras and not video cameras. However, the Revenue argued that the product was a video camera based on its features and operating procedure. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) determined that the product fell under CTH 85258030 as a video camera, thus not eligible for the exemption.

Eligibility for Exemption under Notification No. 25/2005-Cus:
The main issue in the appeal was whether the imported item, "TCL Still Image Digital Video Cameras-DV522," was eligible for the benefit of exemption under notification No. 25/2005-Cus. The Revenue contended that the imported item was a video camera, while the appellant claimed it was primarily meant for recording still images. The appellant failed to produce relevant product literature or user manual to support their claim. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the product description, usage information from the internet, and a circular from the board to conclude that the imported product was a video camera and not eligible for the exemption. The appellant's failure to provide evidence supporting their claim led to the dismissal of the appeal. The burden of proof for claiming exemption lies with the party seeking it, as established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in previous judgments.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the classification of the imported goods under CTH 85258030 as video cameras and the denial of exemption under notification No. 25/2005-Cus. The appellant's inability to substantiate their claim that the product was primarily for still image recording, coupled with the lack of evidence, resulted in the dismissal of the appeal. The principles of burden of proof in claiming exemptions were reiterated, emphasizing the importance of providing sufficient evidence to support claims in customs matters.