TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hrase '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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed digital cameras are capable of capturing still as well as moving images. In support of rejection of the classification made by the appellant and for denying the benefit of the Notification dated 30.06.2017 (supra), the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the cameras in question fails to satisfy the definition of digital still image video camera as provided in the explanation to Sr. No. 13 of Notification No. 25/05 Cus, dated 01.03.2005 as amended vide Notification No. 15/2012 Cus., dated 17.03.2012 and that since the cameras in question have capability to function as both digital still camera and video camera, they are appropriately classifiable under CTH 8525 8090 as other . Being dissatisfied with the impugned orders, the appellant has preferred these appeals before the Tribunal. 3. Shri N.D. George, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the Tariff Item 8525 8020 basically refers to 'Digital Cameras', without any further specification on the type of images to be captured; that going by the description of the product mentioned in the said Tariff Item, it would cover all types and all varieties of digital cameras, capable of capturing s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s considered by the adjudicating authority. The learned AR relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of SRP Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai [2019 ELT 840 (Tri.-Mum.)] to justify the stand of Revenue in support of classification of the impugned goods under CTH 8525 8090. Alternatively, the learned AR submitted that as the primary function of imported Digital Cameras is for capturing still images, the same should be classified under CTH 8525 8030, as per the clarification furnished by CBEC vide Circular dated 10.09.2007. Further, the learned AR argued at length that since there is no ambiguity in reading the relevant Tariff Item vis-a-vis the exemption notification(s), the benefit of duty exemption in respect of the subject goods should not be available to the appellant. In this context, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.C. (Import) Vs Dilip Kumar Company [ 2018 (361) ELT 577 (S.C.)]. 6. The issues involved in these appeals for consideration by the Tribunal are whether the imported goods namely, 'GoPro HERO5 Black' Action Camera is classifiable under CTH 8525 8020 (as claimed by the appellant), or under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or other viewing machines. Some digital cameras and video camera recorders include input terminals so that they can internally record analogue or digital image files from such external machines. Generally, the cameras of this group are equipped with an optical viewfinder or a liquid crystal display (LCD)), or both. Many cameras equipped with an LCD can employ the display both as a viewfinder when capturing images and as a screen for displaying images received from other sources or for reproducing images already recorded. 7.3. Notification No.50/2017 dated 30.06.2017 Sr.No. Chapter or Heading or sub-heading or tariff item Description of goods Standard Rate Integrated GST Condition No. .. .. .. .. .. .. 502. 8525 80 20 Digital Still Image Video Cameras Nil .. .. 8.1. In these cases, the appellant had claimed the classification of the imported goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing given by those dealing with them has to be resorted to. 8.3. For the period up to the year 2005-06, 'still image video cameras' and 'video camera recorders'; 'digital cameras' were classified under Tariff Item 8525 4000 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (CTA). However, in the year 2006- 07, the Tariff Item was aligned with the Harmonised System of Nomenclature (HSN). As a result of the alignment, digital still image video cameras came to be classified under Tariff Item 8525 8020 and video camera recorders were classified under Tariff Item 8525 8030 of the CTH. With regard to proper classification of digital still image video camera , in the relied upon case, the Plaintiff M/s Sony Electronics INC. prayed for a ruling from the U.S. Court of International Trade, New York. After detailed discussions and upon analysis of the relevant Tariff description, HSN notes and considering the functional test of the camera, the U.S. Court vide judgment dated 23.12.2013 had opined that 'digital still image video camera' is that which is capable of recording still images as well as videos, in digital format. The Court also held that it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to accept classification of subject goods under Tariff Item 8525 8090, for the reason that the description under such sub-heading as 'others' is of more in general type. On the contrary, by accepting the trade parlance theory, confirmation of the manufacturer, HSN clarificatory notes etc., we find that the proper interpretation of the law and statute demands that the impugned goods are to be more appropriately classifiable under Tariff Item 8525 80 20, as claimed by the appellant. 9.1. We find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned orders has denied the benefit of 'nil' rate of Customs Duty provided under the notification dated 30.06.2017 on the ground that the conditions prescribed in the previous Notification No. 25/2005-Cus., 01.03.2005 and the amended Notification No.15/2012-Cus., dated 17.03.2012 regarding the capability of video recording have not been fulfilled. The relevant observations made in the impugned orders are extracted herein below:- 5. I have carefully gone through the facts and submissions of the case. The issue involved in the present matter is whether to extend the benefit under Sr. No 502 of notification no. 50/2017- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amera cannot record video of 800x600 pixels and more resolution (in other words it can record less than 800x600 pixels resolution video only and therefore the maximum upper limit is 800x600 pixels); secondly it cannot record at a speed which exceeds 23 frames per second (here again the speed of 23 per second is its maximum speed or upper limit) and at the same time its total one time recording using its maximum storage capacity including expanded capacity cannot be more than 30 minutes. 6. I find that the technical details as reflected in the technical literature of various models and also explained during the course of personal hearing, the cameras imported by the appellant are action cameras which can be mounted on any moving object to record high resolution videos. I find that cameras imported by the appellant are capable of recording of video having resolution 1080 and up to 4K, at the speed of more than 30 frames per second. Thus, these two conditions are not satisfied by the respondent and thus the cameras imported by them are not eligible for benefit under s.no. 502 of notification no. 50/2017-cus dated 30.06.2007. Apart from the fact that the specific description and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ession of the provisions contained in the earlier notification dated 17.03.2012, referred supra. 9.3. In the present case, 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. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary - Third edition, defines the said term to mean an action of superseding or condition of being superseded. The said dictionary also assigns the meaning of 'supersede' to indicate that to put a stop to; to render superfluous or unnecessary; to make of no effect; to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip Kumar Co (supra) is inapplicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as there is no ambiguity in reading of the notification in dispute. The notification dated 30.06.2017 clearly grants the benefit of duty exemption to Digital Still Image Video Camera of Tariff Item 8525 8020. As long as the imported goods are categorized under above Tariff Item and have capability of recording still images as well as video, they will be eligible for the benefit, which has been clearly spelt out in the said notification. 10.3. The decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s SRP Enterprises (supra) relied upon by the learned AR for Revenue is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. The product in dispute in the said decided case was 'TCL DV52', which is a handicam i.e. a video camcorder. Such product is not at all comparable with the cameras in question imported by the appellant, for the reason that the Tariff Heading under 8525 has separately classified the video camcorder and the cameras in question imported by the appellant. 11. In view of the foregoing discussions and analysis, we do not find any merits in the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
