TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 489
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmon order is being passed. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of these cases are that during 2017-18, the appellant, M/s Creative Peripherals & Distribution Ltd, had imported 'GoPro HERO5 Black' Action Camera through Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai and filed the Bills of Entry for assessment, by classifying the same under CTH 8525 8020 as 'Digital Still Image Video Camera'. The appellant had claimed exemption from Basic Customs Duty in terms of Notification 50/2017 - Cus, dated 30.06.2017. However, the assessing officer had rejected the benefit of duty exemption claimed by the appellant and classified the subject goods under CTH 8525 8090.Being aggrieved with the assessment of Bills of Entry, the appellant had filed appeals before the learned Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai - III, which were rejected vide the impugned orders dated 27.12.2018 and 28.06.2019.The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld classification of the subject goods under CTH 8525 8090, solely for the reason that the imported 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntinental (India) Vs UOI [2003 (154) ELT 37 (Guj.)], he submitted that CBEC Circular cannot impose limitation or restriction, which are not provided in the notification, whose benefit has been claimed by the importer-appellant. The learned Advocate for the appellant has also referred to the technical literature and the certificate dated 23.05.2018 issued by the overseas manufacturer of the impugned goods to support the argument that the goods in question are classifiable under Tariff Item 8525 8020 and thereby eligible to the duty exemption. 5. On the other hand, Shri Ramesh Kumar, learned Authorised Representative, appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. He further referred to the technical literature of the product submitted by the appellant to demonstrate that the imported goods can perform both the functions of taking video as well as still images and therefore, the classification under CTH 8525 8090, which refers to 'other goods', was 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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sically resemble the photographic cameras of heading 90.06 or the cinematographic cameras of heading 90.07. the cameras in heading 85.25 and the cameras in Chapter 90 typically include optical lenses to focus the image on a light-sensitive medium and adjustments to vary the amount of light entering the camera. However, photographic and cinematographic cameras of Chapter 90 expose images onto photographic film of Chapter 37, while the cameras of this heading convert the images into analogue or digital data. ............ ............. ............. ............. ............. In digital cameras and video camera recorders, images are recorded onto an internal storage device or onto media (e.g. magnetic tape, optical media, semiconductor media or other media of heading 85.23). They may include an analogue/digital convertor (ADC) and an output terminal which provides the means to send images to units of automatic data processing machines, printers, televisions 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 camera....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....keted by them as 'action camera', as the camera is capable of being used while performing action/adventure sports etc. Further, it has also been clarified in the said certificate that the cameras can capture both still images and videos. Furthermore, on perusal of the sales invoices issued by the appellant, it also reveals that the cameras in question were sold by them as action cameras. The law is well settled in the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. [2004 (168) ELT 151 (S.C.)], wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that when the words in the notification have not been specifically defined, then their popular or commercial meaning 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 80....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hall be preferred to headings, providing a more general description. Further, Rule 4 of the said Rules also explains that goods which cannot be classified in accordance with the said Rules shall be classified under the heading appropriate to the goods to which they are most akin. The impugned order, in this case, has accepted the fact that the cameras in question are Digital Cameras. But due to short in recording capacity and low resolution in capturing the images, it has changed the classification and also denied the benefit contained in notification dated 30.06.2017. On close scrutiny of the product description mentioned in Heading 8525, we are not inclined 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 Commiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....adapted for long duration recording. The first category i.e. digital still image video camera also includes 'digital camera' that apart from taking still images can take moving images for limited period of time but due to lower resolution and lesser number captured per second, the clarity of video shall be of substandard quality in comparison to camcorder. Having gone through the primary difference between the digital still image video camera and video recording camera (camcorder), if the above definition of digital still video camera as provided under notification no. 15/2012-cus is taken into consideration, I find that digital still image video camera 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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". While the aforementioned notification dated 17.03.2012 was in existence, the Central Government, vide another Notification No. 50/2017- Cus, dated 30.06.2017, has prescribed 'Nil' rate of duty in respect of the said product, without attaching any condition thereto. The notification dated 30.06.2017 was issued by the Central Government in supersession 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 ....