Page 15 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

2020 ] INDEX - 1st September, 2020 xiii
Date of commencement of benefit of Area Based Exemption Notification
No. 32/99-C.E. for newly inducted units - See under AREA BASED
EXEMPTION .................................... 625
DEMAND :
— Import of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) camera from Korea -
Adjudicating Authority demanding duty by classifying product under
Tariff Item 8525 80 90 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and denying benefit of
Notification No. 152/2009-Cus. (Sl. No. 833) - Affirmed by Appellate
Authority - On appeal : No dispute that assessee itself had classified
product under Tariff Item 8525 80 90 ibid in its Bill of Entry under
dispute and thereby effectively prevented Revenue from questioning
further - No entry specifically for CCTV cameras - Nothing to show that
CCTV cameras, which according to assessee are neither digital cameras
nor video camera recorders, would fall under category of television
cameras itself - Product cannot be classified under television camera, but
rightly under “Others” for period in dispute - Order to be affirmed -
Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 — Compuage Infocom Ltd. v. Principal
Commissioner of Cus., Chennai (Tri. - Chennai) ....................... 698
Demurrage - Detention Certificate - Issuance of - In vogue prior to Handling
of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009 - If Supreme Court decision
in Mumbai Port Trust [2017 (352) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.)] is applied strictly,
Detention Certificate becomes insignificant - However, this interpretation
militates against Regulation 6 of Airport Authority of India (Storage and
Processing of Cargo, Courier and Express Goods and Postal Mail)
Regulations, 2003 - Such certificate need not be confined to circumstances
specified in Public Notice No. 111/1985, dated 29-7-1985 issued by
Bombay Custom House - It can be issued to cover circumstances
specified in Airport Authority Policy as per Regulation 6 of Airport
Authority of India (Storage and Processing of Cargo, Courier and
Express Goods and Postal Mail) Regulations, 2003 — Qatar Airways v.
Commissioner of Customs (Air), Chennai (Mad.) ...................... 631
— Levy of - Disruption of service at Air Cargo Complex due to alleged arrest
of Customs officers - Non-availability of Customs officers leading to
delay in receipt of transshipment application - Such delay should not be
at cost of importer - Importer should be compensated as delay was not
attributed by them — Qatar Airways v. Commissioner of Customs (Air), Chennai
(Mad.) ......................................... 631
— scope of levy - See under WORDS AND PHRASES ............... 631
— Transshipment - Application of - By its non-filing, importer gained no
advantage - No explanation given by Customs why receipt of application
was refused - Matter remanded for verification whether delay was due to
mass arrest of Customs officers manning transshipment operation and
importer was entitled to compensation - Customs query why cargo
meant for Trivandrum was routed through Chennai, was intended to
deflect problem faced by Customs - Prima facie, importer was not guilty
of delay in filing transshipment application — Qatar Airways v. Commissioner
of Customs (Air), Chennai (Mad.) ............................. 631
Demurrage charges - Waiver of - Customs Authorities cannot direct waiver
of demurrage, which can only be done by custodian - Merely because
Customs Authority expends a reasonable time in dispensation of their
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  15