TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1018
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....notification got amended vide notification number 37/2018-Cus dated 02/04/2018 to the effect that the camera module was specifically made in eigible for any benefit of exemption. 2. It was also observed that while importing the said item i.e " camera module for mobile phones" the appellant was also claiming exemption from paying Social Welfare Charge (SWS) in view of notification number 11/2018-Cus dated 02/02/2018, entry at serial number 30, thereof. Department observed that said notification is specifically about the "digital still image video camera of CTH 85258020 " department formed an opinion that " camera module for mobile phones" imported by the appellant is not eligible even for the benefit of SWS exemption. Hence it was alleged that appellant have wrongly claimed the benefit of exemption resulting into nonpayment or short payment of customs duty (BCD+ SWS) while importing 'camera modules for mobile phones' during the period from 02.02.2018 to 31.03.2019. 3. On being pointed out the appellant deposited an amount of rupee 6,11,866/- (BCD @ 10% plus impact on IGST). However, the differential duty of SWS was not included in the said amount. Accordingly show cause number....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o BCD (57/2017) was amended by notification number 37/2018 dated-02/04/2018 vide which three parts of mobile phone including camera module as mentioned in notification no. 57/ 2017 were omitted there by denying the BCD exemption to three of those products. Learned counsel impressed upon that pursuant to said amendment i.e after 2/04/2018, the appellant started paying BCD @ 10% and paid BCD of Rupees 6,11,866/- with interest amounting to Rupees 1,10,136/- 6. Ld. counsel further submitted that amendment in exemption notification no. 57/2017 thereby recalling the said exemption has wrongly been read for notification no. 11/2018 exemption where from payment of SWS while importing the products in question, has never been withdrawn. It is mentioned that for benefit of notification no. 11 of 2018, (i) the goods must fall under CTH 85258020 and of the Tariff Act (ii) goods must confirm to the description of "Digital Still Image Video Camera" Ld. Counsel further elaborated that the impugned goods/ Camera Modules for Mobile Phones, undisputedly, are classifiable under CTH 85258020. The adjudicating authority has also accepted the same in the impugned order. With the respect of the second ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al order no. 51129-51130/2025 dated 05.08.2025 in Customs appeal no. 52463/2022 in the case titled as One 97 Communications Limited v/s Principal Commissioner of Customs was relied upon where it was held that the personal knowledge of the Principal Commissioner cannot form the basis of the order in absence of any opinion to this effect given by an expert. 8. While further elaborating, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the explicit exclusion of Camera Modules from notification no. 57/2017 dated 30.06.2017 vide amending notification no. 37/2018 dated 02.04.2018 confirms that the 'Camera Module' was initially included within the scope of "Digital Still Image Video Camera". Decision of this Tribunal by final order no. 51708/2025 dated 13.11.2025 in Customs Appeal no. 51026/2020 in the case titled as M/s Oppo Mobile India Private Limited V/s Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import) was relied upon. Thus, confirmation of demand is mentioned to be the outcome of misinterpretation on the part of adjudicating authority below, same is therefore, prayed to be setaside. Since, there is no apparent or proven malafide on part of the appellant question of imposition of pen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ally and factually established, and supported by admissible documentary evidence. With these submissions order under challenge is prayed to be upheld and appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 11. Having heard both the parties perusing the entire record is observed and held as follows: - the appellant has imported the 'Camera Modules For Mobile Phones' and has claimed exemption from payment of Social Welfare Surcharge (SWS) in terms of entry no.30 of notification no. 11/2018-Cus dated 02.02.2018. The appellant had also claimed exemption from payment of basis Customs Duty (BCD) w.r.t impugned Bills of Entry, in terms of notification no 57/2017-Cus dated 30.06.2017. However, subsequently this notification got amended vide notification no 37/2018-Cus dated 02.04.2018 vide which exemption from BCD on 3 out of 5 products mentioned in notification no 57/2017, that is with respect to Printed Circuit Board Assembly (PCBA), Camera Module and Connectors of cellular mobile phones, was withdrawn and 10 per cent BCD was imposed on these three parts of mobile phones. 12. We observe that the demand of BCD post said amendment is not disputed by the appellant. The period of dispute is 02.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oms' ruling letters regarding these provisions clearly demonstrates that Customs regularly classified digital cameras capable of capturing both still and moving images under 8525.80.40 and its predecessor subheadings in the years prior to the importation of plantiff's merchandise. All in all, the principal value of the Bancroft Declaration is to establish that by camera module and "Digital Still Image Video Camera" are classified under same CTH 85258020. The decisions of 1997 Congress would not have added the term "digital" if it understood the phrase "still image video camera" to be a term of art meaning a camera that uses electronic means to capture still images. Because Congress did add the word "digital, however, it is clear that it intended the phrase "still image video cameras" to be interpreted according to the meaning of its individual words. Accordingly, the structure of the HTSUS further establishes that HTSUS 8525.80.40 encompasses those digital cameras capable of capturing both still images and moving images..." 13. However, we observe that the camera module is also classified under CTH 85177090 as part of mobile phone and also CTH under 852....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....independently unlike 'Digital Still Video Camera'. Indian court's decision relied upon by the appellants are also found not applicable to the given set of circumstances. In Creative New Tech Limited (Supra) the imported goods were ''Go Pro digital cameras'' and their accessories and in Panama Corporation (Supra) the imported goods were the 'Digital Video Camera' i.e. the camera as such at the time of import. In the present case the imported good is 'Camera Module' which cannot act as 'Digital Still Video Camera' unless and until it gets assembled into the smartphone/ mobile phone. Thus, at the time of import good in the present case is merely a part of mobile phone. We have also perused notification 57 of 2017 dated 30th June 2017. The said notification exempts the goods of description as specified in column 3 of the table in the said Notification falling within the heading as specified in the corresponding entry in column 2 of said table, when imported into India, from so much of duty of customs leviable there on under the first schedule of tariff as is in excess of the amount calculated at the standard rate as specified in the corresponding entry in column 4 of the said table ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... across provisions then only is presumed consistent meaning unless indicated otherwise. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd reported as 2007 SC 735. In Eureka Forbes Ltd. V/s Allahabad Bent reported as 2010(5) SC 39, it was held that plain grammatical meaning without any additions be rigidly given to the term 'same or identical'. In contrast 'similar' indicates approximate or analogous identity i.e. likeness without exactness. It shares key characteristics but permits differences in details as was held in case of Gujrat Steel Tubes Ltd V/s Gujrat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha reported as 1979 SC496. Hon'ble apex court in another decision titled as Muhammad Yusuf @ Sajid V/s State of Kerela reported as 2022 SC 94 has held that there is a substantial difference between the words identical and similar A single broad traiff entry can encompass two different products provided the wording of the entry, General Rules of Interpretation and statutory chapters or sections notes are satisfied. However, two distinct products generally cannot have same classification if the tarift is strictly structured into ....