Case Law Details
Compuage Infocom Limited Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
The appellant filed a Bill-of-Entry No. 6280158 dated 07.05.2018 for the clearance of ‘Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Cameras’ and since the goods were of Korean origin, the appellant, under the self-assessment scheme, assessed the same at ‘Nil’ rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) in terms of Notification No. 152/2009-Cus. (Sl. No. 833) dated 31. 12.2009.
The Assistant Commissioner of Customs/Adjudicating Authority did not accept the nil rate of BCD and hence, charged BCD at the rate of 15% vide Speaking Order issued in F.No.S.Misc.506/2018-Gr.5A-ACC dated 29.06.2018, against which the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).
A close look at the Bills-of-Entry reveals that there are differences as regards the descriptions of the imported goods are concerned. In any case, there is no dispute that the appellant itself had classified under CTH 8525 8090 in its Bill-of-Entry under dispute and thereby effectively prevented the Revenue from questioning further.
From the HSN Note read with the Customs Tariff Heading 8525, we find that there is no entry specifically for CCTV cameras and it is nowhere even hinted that CCTV cameras, which according to the appellant are neither digital cameras nor video camera recorders, would fall under the category of television cameras itself and hence, this argument of the assessee cannot be accepted. For these reasons, they cannot be classified under television camera, but rightly under “Others” for the period in dispute, since we cannot add or substitute our views/opinions, to negate Revenue’s classification, just to go with appellant’s claim which is based only on arguments.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
