2022 (3) TMI 419 - AT - Customs

Exemption from Basic Customs Duty BCD or not - imported NIKON brand digital still image video cameras - benefit of exemption under notification dated 01.03.2005, as amended by the notification dated 17.03.2012 or not - doctrine of merger - Whether the order dated 19.12.2017 passed by the Tribunal, as a part of previous round of litigation, can be relied for the purpose of merits in this Appeal? - Difference of opinion. HELD THAT - It would be appropriate to refer the matter to the President of the Tribunal for constituting a larger bench of the Tribunal for deciding the following issues (i) Whether the digital still image video cameras imported by the appellant would be entitled to BCD exemption under the notification dated 01.03.2005, as amended by the notification dated 17.03.2012, whereby an Explanation was added; (ii) Whether the Tribunal, in the decision rendered on 19.12.2017, has correctly interpreted the scope of Explanation . The papers may, accordingly, be placed before the President of the Tribunal.

Summary

Issues involved:

1. Preliminary Issue: Whether the order dated 19.12.2017 passed by the Tribunal, as a part of previous round of litigation, can be relied for the purpose of merits in this Appeal.
2. Issue on merits: Whether the appellant is eligible to avail benefit of BCD exemption under notification dated 01.03.2005, as amended by notification dated 17.03.2012.

Detailed Analysis:

Preliminary Issue:

The Tribunal's previous decision dated 19.12.2017 was set aside by the Supreme Court solely on jurisdictional grounds, not on merits. The Supreme Court in Canon India held that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Officers lacked jurisdiction to issue the show cause notices, rendering the entire proceeding invalid. The Supreme Court did not examine the merits of the Tribunal's order. Hence, the reasoning given in the Tribunal's earlier decision for denying the exemption benefit cannot be ignored. The doctrine of merger was discussed, indicating that only the operative part of the Tribunal's order merges with the Supreme Court's order, not the reasoning. Therefore, the Tribunal's earlier reasoning remains relevant for consideration in this appeal.

Issue on Merits:

Eligibility for BCD Exemption:

The appellant's digital still image video cameras were imported during the period February 2015 to March 2015. The primary feature of these cameras is to capture still images, and they are capable of recording videos for a maximum period of 29 minutes 59 seconds in a single sequence. The issue revolves around whether these cameras qualify for exemption under the notification dated 01.03.2005, as amended on 17.03.2012.

Examination of Notification and Explanation:

The notification dated 01.03.2005, aligned with the Information Technology Agreement (ITA), provided BCD exemption to 'digital still image video cameras'. An 'Explanation' was added on 17.03.2012, specifying that a 'digital still image video camera' means a digital camera not capable of recording video with a minimum resolution of 800 x 600 pixels, at a minimum of 23 frames per second, for at least 30 minutes in a single sequence using the maximum storage (including expanded) capacity.

Three Conditions in the Explanation:

1. Resolution and Frame Rate: There is no dispute that the cameras meet the first two conditions of recording video at a resolution of 800 x 600 pixels or more and at 23 frames per second or more.

2. Single Sequence Duration: The cameras can record videos for a maximum period of 29 minutes 59 seconds in a single sequence, which does not satisfy the third condition of recording for at least 30 minutes.

3. Maximum Storage Capacity: The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the restriction on video length imposed by firmware is an artificial restriction that can be removed. However, the Tribunal found that firmware is intrinsic to the camera's functioning and cannot be altered by the user. The maximum storage capacity condition is an anti-abuse provision to prevent post-clearance enhancement of memory capacity.

Interpretation of the Explanation:

The Tribunal held that if even one of the three conditions is not met, the camera qualifies for BCD exemption. The third condition, requiring the camera to record for at least 30 minutes in a single sequence using maximum storage, was not met by the appellant's cameras. Therefore, the cameras should be eligible for exemption.

Beneficial Interpretation:

The notification aims to promote trade in Information Technology products, including digital still image video cameras, pursuant to India's obligations under the ITA. The Supreme Court in Mother Superior Adoration Convent emphasized that beneficial exemption provisions should be construed in favor of the assessee if there is any ambiguity.

Conclusion and Referral to Larger Bench:

The Tribunal concluded that the digital still image video cameras imported by the appellant are entitled to BCD exemption under the notification dated 01.03.2005, as amended on 17.03.2012. However, since this view contradicts the Tribunal's earlier decision, the matter was referred to the President of the Tribunal for constituting a larger bench to decide on the issues:

1. Whether the 'digital still image video cameras' imported by the appellant would be entitled to BCD exemption under the notification dated 01.03.2005, as amended by the notification dated 17.03.2012.
2. Whether the Tribunal, in the decision rendered on 19.12.2017, correctly interpreted the scope of the 'Explanation'.