Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Commissioner Of Customs vs Agarwal Distributors (P) Ltd. on 7 August, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(104)ELT799(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER T.P. Nambiar, Member (J)
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in order No. 381 /97, dated 25-3-1997. In this case the respondents filed the bill of entry through their agent for clearance of 400 objective lenses for camera. The case of the department is that these are accessories but the respondents pleads that these are parts of cameras. But as per the importer's statement the objective lenses does not change the basic function of the camera and it is to be treated as part and not as an accessory. Therefore, they claimed that these are freely allowed under OGL.
2. The adjudicating authority held that these are accessories and specific licence is required. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held as follows:
"I have carefully gone through the points mentioned in the Appeal Memorandum and the arguments putforth during the hearing. The main argument of the importer is that these are only parts. No doubt for taking a picture at a long distance zoom lense is fixed but this lense is fitted as a replacement of the normal lense. The Deputy Commissioner has not appreciated this fact and has given the impression as if this lense is fitted in addition to the normal lense. To this extent, there is a mis-understanding of the facts. Secondly, the SLR Camera itself is allowed free of licence under OGL. Assuming for the sake of argument that if the camera with the objective lense was imported, it would have been cleared under OGL. Therefore bringing this lense under the restricted category, does not seem to be logical. Further, they have argued that Entry No. 90021100 includes specifically objective lense for camera and is allowed free of licence under OGL. The accessories are generally one which are attachment in addition to the existing ones to increase the efficiency. For example, flash light in a camera, filters for different colours, lense-hood to protect the lense from sunlight on the picture. Only such accessories have been brought under the restricted category. Even these accessories have, in the New Policy announcement by Notification No. 23 (RE-96)/92-97, dated 10-2-1997, been brought under OGL. They have produced a copy of this notification dated 10-2-1997 during the personal hearing.
Taking into account all the above factors, I am of the view that these objective lenses for cameras are parts of the cameras and as such allowed under OGL. The Order of the Deputy Commissioner is accordingly set aside with the consequential relief."
3. In the appeal grounds, the appellant have mentioned as follows :
"The order of the Commissioner (Appeal) is not acceptable for the following reasons:
1. As per Para 32 of FTC Policy an accessory or attachment means a part, sub-assembly etc., that contributes to the efficiency or effectiveness of the equipments. The objective lens is basically an attachment and not a permanent fitting. Whenever required, it is fitted and replaced. It is used to increase the efficiency of the functioning of the camera. Therefore, it is only an accessory and not a part.
2. There is also no manufacturer's catalogue or literature or any other documentary evidence has been produced in support of their claim that is only a part of the camera.
In view of the above, it is only an accessory requiring a specific licence as per ITC (HS) classification policy book."
4. The learned JDR stated that as per Para 32 of the policy, the accessory or attachment means a part, sub-assembly etc., which contributes to the efficiency or effectiveness of the equipments. Therefore, the objective lense is an attachment and not a permanent fitting. Whenever required, it is fitted and replaced.
5. But the learned Consultant Shri M. Rajendran stated before me that there is a separate heading which is 90069100.10. He pointed out that the imported items falls under 90.02. He pointed out that the goods imported under 90.02. He also reiterated the reasonings of the Commissioner (Appeals).
6. I have considered the pleas made by both the sides. It is seen that for taking a picture at a long distance, zoom lense is fixed to camera and is fitted as replacement of the normal lengths. Therefore, it cannot be said that this is used for the efficiency of the camera. But the zoom lense is used for taking the pictures from a distance. While using the zoom lense, the original lense is removed and in its place the zoom lense is put. Therefore, as per the definitions of accessories, it cannot be said that it is used for efficiency of the camera. But it is used as part of the camera itself for the purpose of taking pictures from a distance. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) also stated that the camera itself is allowed free of licence and in case if the camera is imported with the present lens, it would have been cleared under OGL. So also, it is seen that Entry No. 90021100 includes a specifically objective lense camera and is allowed free of licence under OGL. Accessory means a part, sub-assembly that contributes to the efficiency or effectiveness of the equipments. But in this case, it seen that the original lens is removed and this zoom lens is introduced therein and therefore it cannot be considered as accessory which increases the efficiency. On the contrary, it is used in the nature of a part of the camera itself. But the flash in a camera filters, lens etc. can be considered as accessories. These facts were taken into consideration by the Commissioner (Appeals) in allowing the appeal filed by the respondents. In these circumstances, no ground is made out for interfering with the above said orders and accordingly this appeal is dismissed.