Madras High Court
M/S. Compuage Infocom Ltd vs The Principal Commissioner Of Customs on 24 March, 2022
Bench: R. Mahadevan, J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
C.M.A.Nos.81 and 83 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.03.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
C.M.A.Nos.81 and 83 of 2022
and
CMP.Nos.546 and 551 of 2022
M/s. Compuage Infocom Ltd.,
Annai Auxilum Warehouse,
No.87 GNT Road, Ponniammanmedu,
Madhavaram, Chennai 600 110.
... Appellant in both CMAs
Versus
The Principal Commissioner of Customs
Chennai VII Commissionerate,
New Custom House, Air Cargo Complex,
Meenambakkam, Chennai 600 027.
... Respondent in both CMAs
Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 130 of Customs Act,
1962 against the orders dated 06.02.2020 and 14.12.2021 passed by the
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in the
respective Final Order No.40071 of 2020 and Miscellaneous order No.40257 of
2021, in Appeal No. 41027 of 2019.
Page 1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.81 and 83 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan (in both CMAs)
For Respondent : Mrs. Hema Muralikrishnan ( in both CMAs)
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) Assailing the orders dated 06.02.2020 and 14.12.2021 in Customs Appeal No.41027 of 2019, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), the appellant / assessee has come up with these two appeals.
2.According to the appellant, they had filed bill of entry bearing No.6280158 dated 07.05.2018 for clearance of 'Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Camera' and classified the said goods under CTH 85258010 as 'television cameras'. As the goods were of Korean origin, they assessed the same at 'Nil' rate of Basic Customs Duty in terms of S.No.833 of Notification No.152/2009-Cus dated 31.12.2009. However, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs / Adjudicating Authority changed the classification from CTH 85258010 to CTH 852598090 i.e. “Others”, charged BCD at 15% adv. and thereafter, passed an order-in-original under section 17(5) of the Customs Act, Page 2/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.81 and 83 of 2022 1962 (in short, 'the Act') on 29.06.2018. Challenging the same, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai who upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority and dismissed the appeal. As against the same, the appellant went on further appeal before the CESTAT, which also, by a final order No.40071 of 2020 dated 06.02.2020, dismissed the appeal by confirming the order of the appellate authority. Upon receipt of the said order copy, the appellant filed an application seeking rectification of mistake crept-in, in the same. However, the said application was rejected by the CESTAT, after having held that there were no factual errors, by order dated 14.12.2021 in Misc Order No.40257/2021.
3.Aggrieved against the orders dated 06.02.2020 and 14.12.2021 so passed by the CESTAT, the present two appeals came to be filed, formulating the following substantial questions of law for consideration of this court. CMA.No.81 of 2022:
"(i) Whether the Tribunal has failed to exercise jurisdiction as a final fact - finding body by not giving any finding on the various legal submissions and case laws relied upon by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal filed before the Tribunal.
(ii) Whether the Tribunal has erred in stating that appellant themselves had classified the subject goods under Page 3/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.81 and 83 of 2022 Customs Tariff Heading 8252 8090 in the Bill of Entry, when it is evident from the order - in - original dated 29.06.2018, that the appellant had classified the subject goods under CTH 8525 8010?
(iii) Whether the Tribunal has erred in its finding that the HSN explanatory notes to Customs Tariff 8525 does include CCTV Cameras, whereas the explanatory notes clearly state that television cameras include cameras used in closed circuit television (surveillance)?
(iv) Whether the Tribunal has erred in coming to the conclusion that the bills of entry of other importers relied upon by the appellant were not relevant since there were differences as regards the description of the imported goods?
(v) Whether the Tribunal has erred by not following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Vishal Electronics Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India - 1993 (68) ELT 557 (Bom)?"
CMA.No.83 of 2022:
"(i) Whether the Tribunal has failed to exercise jurisdiction as a final fact - finding body by not giving any finding on the various legal submissions and case laws relied upon by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal filed before the Tribunal.
(ii) Whether the Tribunal has erred in rejecting the application filed for rectification of mistake when the appellant had pointed out the errors apparent?
Page 4/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.81 and 83 of 2022
(iii) Whether the Tribunal has erred in its finding that the HSN explanatory notes to Customs Tariff 8525 does include CCTV Cameras whereas, the explanatory notes clearly state that television cameras include cameras used in closed circuit television (surveillance)?
(iv) Whether the Tribunal has erred in coming to the conclusion that the bills of entry of other importers relied upon by the appellant were not relevant since there were differences as regards the description of the imported goods?
(v) Whether the Tribunal has erred by not following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Vishal Electronics Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India - 1993 (68) ELT 557 (Bom)?"
4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant all along stated that CCTV cameras are classified under CTH 8525 8010 as television cameras; and in support of the same, they produced a copy of the bill of entry no.4232142 dated 01.12.2017 filed by M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd classifying similar goods under CTH 8525 8010 and a copy of the bill of entry no.6450438 dated 19.05.2018 filed by them before New Delhi Customs, where CCTV camera was classified under CTH 8525 8010 and the benefit of notification no.152/2009 was extended to them. Placing reliance on the HSN explanatory notes to CTH 8525, which clearly state that television Page 5/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.81 and 83 of 2022 cameras include cameras used in closed circuit television (surveillance), the learned counsel submitted that the CCTV cameras are in the category of television cameras and there is nothing in the customs tariff or HSN exclude to closed circuit television camera. However, the Appellate Authorities rejected the claim of the appellant, by observing that there were differences as regards the descriptions of the goods imported in the bills of entry. Further, the CESTAT erred in holding that the appellant itself had classified the goods under CTH 8525 8090 in its Bill of Entry under dispute. It is also submitted that the exporting country i.e, Republic of Korea follows the Harmonized Commodity Description and coding system and the supplier as well as the authority, who issued the certificate of origin, classified closed circuit television cameras under CTH 8525 8010 only and hence, adopting a different classification would defeat the very purpose of uniform coding systems introduced by the World Customs Organisation. The learned counsel further referring to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Vishal Electronics Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India [1993 (68) ELT 557 (Bom)], wherein, the issue involved was as to the rate of duty applicable to lens for closed circuit television camera falling under tariff item 90.02; and it was held that lens imported for closed circuit television camera had to be assessed at the rate as Page 6/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.81 and 83 of 2022 applicable to television camera. With these averments, the learned counsel prayed to allow this appeal by setting aside the order passed by the CESTAT.
5.Per contra, the learned senior panel counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that after analysing the entire materials placed before it, the CESTAT has concluded that the CCTV cameras cannot be classified under the category of 'television cameras', but under 'others' and ultimately, rejected the appeal filed by the appellant, by the order impugned herein, which does not require any interference at the hands of this court.
6.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the materials available on record.
7.The only point that arises for consideration herein is, relating to the classification of the imported goods viz., CCTV cameras, either under CTH 8525 8010 as claimed by the appellant or under CTH 8525 8090, as ordered by the authorities below.
Page 7/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.81 and 83 of 2022
8.Concededly, as per notification no.152/2009-Cus, dated 31.12.2009, all the goods falling under CTH 8525 8010 imported from Republic of Korea are exempted from the payment of basic customs duty. In the customs tariff, the only goods classified in CTH 8525 8010 is television camera.
9.It is the specific case of the appellant that as far as the Republic of Korea is concerned, closed circuit television cameras is also a television camera and therefore, the certificate of origin issued by the authorised Chamber of Commerce in Korea, placed it under tariff heading 8525 8010 only. It is further stated by the appellant that the CTH 8525 specifically covers (i)transmission apparatus for radio broadcasting or television whether or not incorporating reception apparatus or sound recording or reproducing apparatus; (ii)television cameras; (iii)digital camera; (d)video camera recorder; and out of the same, the CCTV camera is covered by the tariff heading 'television camera' and in the classification of CTH 8525 8010. The said classification of CCTV cameras under CTH 8525 8010 was accepted by the Customs, New Delhi and the benefit of notification no.152/2009 was extended to the appellant, as evident from the bill of entry no.6450438 dated 19.05.2018; and the bill of entry no.4232142 dated 01.12.2017 filed by M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd Page 8/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.81 and 83 of 2022 classifying the similar goods under CTH 8525 8010, was taken into consideration.
10.On the other hand, the learned senior panel counsel appearing for the respondent drew the attention of this court to the order impugned herein and pointed out that there is no entry specifically for CCTV cameras in the HSN note and the customs tariff Heading 8525; and in the bill of entry produced by the appellant, there were differences as regards the descriptions of the goods imported; and the appellant itself classified the goods under CTH 8525 8090 in its Bill of Entry under dispute. Therefore, the CESTAT rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground of classification of the goods.
11.As a riposte, the learned counsel for the appellant strenuously disputed the observation of the CESTAT in para 6.2 of the order impugned herein that the appellant itself had classified the goods under CTH 8525 8090 in its bill of entry under dispute.
12.Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and upon perusal of the materials placed, which would disclose that Page 9/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.81 and 83 of 2022 the appellant in all the documents placed before the authorities below, have mentioned their imported goods as classified under CTH 8525 8010, this court is inclined to set aside the orders passed by the authorities below for proper verification and are accordingly, set aside. Consequently, the matter is remitted to the Assessing Officer for considering all the materials and passing orders afresh, on merits and in accordance with law, after providing due opportunity of hearing to the appellant, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
13.These civil miscellaneous appeals are disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(R.M.D., J.) (J.S.N.P., J.) 24.03.2022 av Internet : Yes Index : Yes / No To
1. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai.
2. The Principal Commissioner of Customs Chennai VII Commissionerate, New Custom House, Air Cargo Complex, Meenambakkam, Chennai 600 027.
Page 10/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.Nos.81 and 83 of 2022 R. MAHADEVAN, J.
and J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
av C.M.A.Nos.81 and 83 of 2022 and CMP.Nos.546 and 551 of 2022 24.03.2022 Page 11/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis