9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es more. As such, Revenue is of the view that the imported cameras will not be entitled to the benefit of the notification. Held that: - The imported digital cameras taking into consideration the memory capacity at the time of import, were found to have the capability of recording video in a single sequence of more than 30 minutes. However, during investigation, it was found that such capabilities have been restricted through firmware to a single sequence of less than 30 minutes. Hence, the fact of matter is that the imported digital cameras, can run a single sequence of only less than 30 minutes whereas the cameras have the capability to have a single sequence of much more than 30 minutes - Such an interpretation will make the stipulation in the explanation to the Notification about the maximum storage (including expanded) capacity as redundant. It is obligatory to read and satisfy all the conditions of the notification without rendering any part therein as redundant. Since in the present case, the imported digital cameras are capable of recording video with minimum resolution and minimum recording speed for more than 30 minutes in a single sequence; using maximum storage capac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Disha Jain, Mr Tarun Gulati and Shri Govind Dixit, learned counsels for the parties. Shri V Lakshmi Kumaran, learned advocate submits that in the previous and subsequent period i.e. prior to 17.3.2012 and subsequent to 30.4.2015; Duty was nil‟ but during the period when this explanation was inserted, duty had been demanded. The explanation inserted in (Sl.No.13) of Notification No.25/2005-Cus during the period 17.03.2012 to 30.04.2015, which is the subject matter of the present dispute is reproduced below: S. No. Tariff Item Description 13 Digital still image video cameras. Explanation:- For the purpose of this entry, digital still image video camera means a digital camera not capable of recording video with minimum resolution of 800 x 600 pixels, at minimum 23 frames per second, for at least 30 minutes in a single sequence using the maximum storage (including expanded) capacity He interpreted the explanation by mentioning what type of digital still image video cameras were not covered by the said explanation. According to h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e following facts:- (a) For Nikon (i) Specific disclosure about the specifications of camera models imported by Nikon immediately after the insertion of explanation to Sl. No.13 of Notification No.25/2005-Cus in March, 2012. (ii) First check examination of goods conducted and goods physically verified by the Customs Authorities. Technical details of goods also submitted. (b) For Sony (iii) In the case of Sony, the event took place in the following sequence: (a) After the amendment of Notification No. 25/2005-Cus vide Notification No. 15/2012 Cus dated 17.3.2012 the appellant had filed 30 Bills of Entry (March-April, 2012) for the import of DSCs. Duty at higher rate was paid under protest as the Customs Authority sought to deny benefit of the exemption notification . (b) Refund application for 30 Bills of Entry was filed. Refund for 4 finally assessed Bills of Entry was granted and denied for 26 Bills of Entry (filed under protest) by Order dated 12.11.2013. For the 26 Bills of Entry the appellant sought re-assessment by way of speaking order. (c) In the interim, clarificatory letter was issued by the TRU on 14.09.2012. After the issuance of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orks [2006 (197) ELT 308 (SC)] 8. In addition, ld. Counsel submitted that education cess, secondary education cess and higher secondary education cess are not payable even in the disputed period and denial of exemption is incorrect. 9. According to him, notification No.69/2004-Cus dated 9.7.2004 and Notification No.28/2007 Cus dated 1.3.2007 exempted imported goods from levy of EC and SHEC respectively. It is noted that no explanation placing conditions was added to this notification, therefore, it must be interpreted in a way as it exists. The explanation of Notification No.25/2005-Cus, cannot be borrowed for the purposes of interpreting Notification No. 69/2004 Cus and Notification No.28/2007-Cus. Further, reliance is placed on the case cited below where it has been held that interpretation of a notification should be on the basis of its own wordings and not upon the interpretation of any other notification. In this case, he relied on the ratio of decision of CCE Vs. Rukmani Traders [2004 (165) ELT 481 (SC)]. 10. Lastly he submits that impugned order is not sustainable, illegal and may kindly be set aside. 11. Shri Tarun Gulati, learned Counsel for Samsung adopt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sic Customs Duty (BCD) subject to certain conditions as laid down in the said Notification. The said entry reads as under: S. No. Tariff Item Description 13 Digital still image video cameras. Explanation:- For the purpose of this entry, digital still image video camera means a digital camera not capable of recording video with minimum resolution of 800 x 600 pixels, at minimum 23 frames per second, for at least 30 minutes in a single sequence using the maximum storage (including expanded) capacity As per the above explanation, digital still image video camera means a digital camera not capable of recording video: i. With resolution of 800 x 600 pixels or more; ii. At 23 frames or more per second; iii. For 30 minutes or more in a single sequence using maximum storage (including expanded) capacity. 17.2.10 e) Similar physical demonstration of representative digital cameras of other noticees too, was carried out. Results of such physical demonstration show similar results as in the case of M/s. Canon India Pvt Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in different court cases quoted by the noticees in this regard, hold good and support noticees contention. e) I however, find that the noticees in order to justify their stand have curtailed the words of the Notification in such a way that they have ignored the words using the maximum storage (including expanded) capacity . Though the artificial curtailment of video recording time is 29 minutes 59 seconds but the same is not by using the maximum storage (including expanded) capacity. f) I observe the international practice is indicative of the fact that basic distinguishing criterion between cameras having limited of enhanced video recording capability is the length of video sequence (whether it is less than 30 minutes or 30 minutes or more) which can be made, when using the maximum storage capacity of the camera. g) I observe that the most of the digital steel image video cameras imported by the noticees have complied with the first two conditions of the said notification. The contentious issue is regarding fulfillment of the third condition, which prescribes a restriction of time limit of 30 minutes for recording a sequence using maximum storage (including expa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nufacturer or by user itself through different means i.e. updating by a specific file copied on memory card and following instructions available at manufacturer s own service centre / own website; that recording of video clips is restricted to specific timing and this maximum minutes restriction is a restriction per clip and not related to the storage media capacity; that camera allows recording of multiple clips each of less than specified timings depending on availability of storage, battery etc. He also filed a summary of his arguments vide his written note dated 15.11.17. 15. We heard all the parties at length and perused all the material record. 16. Misc. Application has been filed for early hearing of the appeal which is now being heard. So the Misc. Application has become infructuous and is dismissed as such. 17. No camera literature was produced before us. Hence, we decide the appeal with material available on record. 18. The crux of the dispute is whether the digital still image video cameras imported by the appellant are eligible for the benefit of nil rate of customs duty during the disputed period when the explanation was in place under Notification No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e video is many times more. As such, Revenue is of the view that the imported cameras will not be entitled to the benefit of the notification. 22. The imported digital cameras taking into consideration the memory capacity at the time of import, were found to have the capability of recording video in a single sequence of more than 30 minutes. However, during investigation, it was found that such capabilities have been restricted through firmware to a single sequence of less than 30 minutes. Hence, the fact of matter is that the imported digital cameras, can run a single sequence of only less than 30 minutes whereas the cameras have the capability to have a single sequence of much more than 30 minutes. If the arguments of the appellant are to be accepted, then the notification benefit is to be extended to all those digital still image video cameras, in which a single sequence recording is of less than 30 minutes. Such an interpretation will make the stipulation in the explanation to the Notification about the maximum storage (including expanded) capacity as redundant. It is obligatory to read and satisfy all the conditions of the notification without rendering any part therein as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
