TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal classifies TCL DV710 as digital camera for customs exemption, rejects video camera recorder classification.</h1> <h3>PANAM CORPORATION Versus COMMR. OF CUSTOMS (ACC & IMPORT), MUMBAI</h3> PANAM CORPORATION Versus COMMR. OF CUSTOMS (ACC & IMPORT), MUMBAI - 2020 (374) E.L.T. 743 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues Involved:1. Classification of TCL brand Digital Video Camera Model DV710.2. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 25/2005-Cus.Detailed Analysis:1. Classification of TCL brand Digital Video Camera Model DV710:The appellants classified the imported TCL brand Digital Video Camera Model DV710 under CTH 8525 80 20 as digital cameras and claimed the benefit of Sl. No. 13 of exemption Notification No. 25/2005-Cus. The department, however, classified the goods under CTH 8525 80 30 as video camera recorders and denied the exemption.The appellants argued that the goods are correctly classifiable under CTH 8525 80 20, which covers all digital cameras without any condition or exception. They contended that CTH 8525 80 30 is inappropriate as it covers video camera recorders other than digital cameras. The imported goods, being digital cameras, cannot be classified under CTH 8525 80 30. The department's case was that the exemption would only be available for cameras that take moving images for a limited period of time.The Tribunal noted that the impugned goods have the capacity to record video images in addition to still images. The literature submitted indicated that the cameras store images and/or videos digitally, which conforms to the explanatory notes. The Tribunal referred to the U.S. Court of International Trade, which held that a 'digital still image video camera' is one capable of recording both photographs and videos in digital format, and should be classified under 8525 80 40 as digital still image video cameras. This classification was persuasive for the Tribunal in considering the classification of the disputed goods under CTH 8525 80 20.2. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 25/2005-Cus:The appellants submitted that the number of still photos would be 200, whereas the video recording would not be more than 3.5 minutes. They argued that the C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 32/2007, which stipulates that the video recording should be for a limited time, is not supported by any authority or literature and is incorrect. The product satisfies the conditions laid down in the circular, and similar imports were granted exemption in December 2009.The Tribunal examined Circular No. 32/2007, which clarified that the benefit of the exemption would be available to 'digital cameras' with still image recording as the principal function, including those that can record moving images for a limited period of time. The Tribunal found that the impugned goods are digital cameras and that the exemption contained in the circular is applicable to digital still image video cameras. The department did not deny that the impugned goods are digital cameras or that they have a limited capability of recording videos. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the exemption could not be denied.The Tribunal concluded that the impugned TCL-DV710 cameras imported by the appellants are eligible for exemption as 'Digital Still Image Video Cameras' under Notification No. 25/2005-Cus. The appeal was allowed with consequential benefits.
TaxTMI 