Fujifilm India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
CESTAT Chennai held that benefit of Basic Customs Duty BCD under notification no. 25/2005 eligible in case of import of ‘Digital Still Image Video Cameras’. Accordingly, appeal allowed with consequential benefits.
Facts- The taxpayer, feeling aggrieved by the denial of exemption of Basic Customs Duty [BCD] to them in the Order-in-Original No.341/2012 dated 29.06.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Gr.5A), Chennai which having been upheld in Order-in-Appeal by the First Appellate Authority, Chennai has filed this appeal.
In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the cameras imported by the taxpayer namely “Digital Still Image Video Cameras” under 15 Bills of Entry was not eligible for the benefit of BCD exemption in terms of Sl. No. 13 of Notification No.25/2005. The same was held so after considering the amended Notification dated 17.03.2012.
Conclusion- The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Nikon India Pvt. Ltd has held that all the three parameters/functions of a digital camera should be cumulatively read so as to ascertain whether all the characteristics are above the threshold limit; in that event, the digital camera would not be eligible to the exemption from BCD under the said Notification. In the event any one of the parameter/characteristic is below the threshold limit e.g. recording time is less than 30 minutes in a single sequence using the maximum storage (including expanded) capacity, then the cameras would be eligible to the benefit of the said Notification. Also, the Revenue has never claimed that there is ambiguity in the said Notification. On the contrary, the Learned Special Counsel in the written submission mentioned that there is no ambiguity in the wordings of the Notification and it should be literally interpreted with in the legal frame work. The appellant in the present case also fairly established that their case falls within the four corners of the said Notification by adducing evidence discussed above. In view of above, it can fairly be inferred that the appellants are eligible to exemption from BCD under the said Notification 25/2005 CE dated 1.3.2005 as amended.
