Creative Peripherals & Distribution Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs ACC Mumbai (CESTAT Mumbai)
The issue under consideration is whether assessing officer is correct in rejecting the benefit of Basic Customs Duty exemption claimed by the appellant on the import of ‘GoPro HERO5 Black’ Action Camera?
CESTAT states that 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. The legislative intent behind the superseding notification dated 30.06.2017 (in dispute) is manifest that the embargo created in the earlier notification dated 17.03.2012 should not be looked into, meaning thereby that the ‘Digital Still Image Video Cameras’ falling under Tariff Item 8525 8020 should be eligible for the benefit of duty exemption and the criterion of quality and capacity to record images/events provided in the explanation appended to the earlier notification dated 17.03.2012 should not be insisted upon by the Customs authorities. 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, CESTAT are of the considered opinion that the duty exemption provided under notification dated 30.06.2017 for ‘digital still image video camera’ should be available to the appellant.
