Page 261 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

2020 ] COMPUAGE INFOCOM LTD. v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUS., CHENNAI 699

80 10 itself without re-classifying the same under CTH 8525 80 90; that similar
goods, imported by another importer under Bill of Entry No. 6450438, dated 19-
5-2018, were classified under CTH 8525 80 10 by the Customs at New Delhi; that
the Republic of Korea followed a Harmonized Commodity Description and cod-
ing system and the supplier issued the certificate of origin classifying the import-
ed goods under CTH 8525 80 10 only, etc.
3.2 Learned Advocate would inter alia further submit that CTH 8525
specifically covered transmission apparatus for radio broadcasting or television,
including television camera, digital camera and video camera recorder; that
CCTV cameras are neither transmission apparatus nor digital cameras nor video
camera recorders and hence, the only item remaining and covered by the Tariff
Heading being television cameras, the impugned CCTV cameras are required to
be classified as television cameras only; that there is nothing in the Customs Tar-
iff or even the HSN classifying CCTV cameras; that as settled by various deci-
sions cited before the Commissioner (Appeals), the burden of proof was always
on the taxing authorities and a mere assertion was of no use, etc.
3.3 Learned Advocate concluded his arguments by submitting that as
long as there was no denial that the goods in question was television cameras,
either open circuit or closed circuit, it remains as television camera and hence,
even the CCTV cameras are required to be classified as television cameras only;
and hence, the appellant rightly claimed the classification under CTH 8525 80 10
which is a specific entry for television camera, which was also supported by the
certificate of country of origin and also a similar classification by the Delhi Cus-
toms.
4. Per contra, Learned Departmental Representative appearing for the
Revenue supported the findings of the lower authorities. She also submitted that
the basic functionality of a CCTV camera is for the purposes of surveillance
whereas a television camera is used as a transmission apparatus for radio broad-
casting or television; that subject to the typical functioning of each apparatus,
classification has been provided and that CCTV cameras not figuring anywhere
in the specific categories, has been rightly brought under “Other” under CTH
8525 80 90.
5. We have heard both sides, perused the impugned Bill of Entry No.
6280158, dated 7-5-2018, placed on record and have also gone through the rele-
vant HSN Explanatory Note and Notification No. 152/2009-Cus. (supra). During
the hearing, Learned Advocate for the appellant also placed on record the certifi-
cate of origin issued by the exporter which is dated 19-11-2019.
6.1 The impugned Bill of Entry No. 6280158, dated 7-5-2018 filed by the
appellant itself contains the CTH as 8525 80 90. The appellant has also placed on
record various other Bills of Entry like Bill of Entry No. 6450438, dated 19-5-2018
which were classified under CTH 8525 80 10. The descriptions of the goods given
under Bill of Entry No. 6280158 are “KAP-CCTV CAMERA-CCTV SYSTEM
EQUIPMENTS”, “KAP-NETWORK VIDEO RECORDER-CCTV SYSTEM
EQUIPMENTS”, “AJ-CCTV CAMERA-CCTV SYSTEM EQUIPMENTS” and “AJ-
DIGITAL VIDEO RECORDER-CCTV SYSTEM EQUIPMENTS” and the descrip-
tions of the goods under Bill of Entry No. 6450438 are “KAP-CCTV CAMERA-
(CCTV SYSTEM EQUIPMENTS)”, “AJ DIGITAL RECORDER-(CCTV SYSTEM
EQUIPMENTS)”, “AJ DIGITAL VIDEO RECORDER-(CCTV SYSTEM
EQUIPMENTS)”, “AJ CCTV CAMERA-(CCTV SYSTEM EQUIPMENTS)”, “KAP

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  261