2008(11)LCX0205

In the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai

Shri P.G. Chacko, Member Judicial) Shri K.K. Agarwal, Member (Technical)

D-Link India Ltd.

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa

Final Order No. A/633/WZB/2008-CII/CSTB dt. 14.11.2008 certified on 18.12.2008 in Appeal No. C/1510/2002-Mum.

Cases Quoted -

Hi-Tech Computers vs. CC, Bangalore 2004(09)LCX0210 Eq 2005 (180) ELT 0356 (T-Ban.) - Relied on [Para 1]

Advocated By -

None for Appellant
Shri Manish Mohan SDR for Respondent

Per P.G. Chacko :

The appellants do not want to be heard. Their additional written submissions are available on record, which indicate that they are relying on a decision of this Tribunal on a similar classification dispute. The item arising for classification is USB digital camera imported by the appellants. According to them, it is classifiable under SH 8471.80 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act. The authorities, on the other hand, have classified it under SH 8525.40 of the said Schedule. We find that, in the case of Hi-Tech Computers Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore 2004(09)LCX0210 Eq 2005 (180) ELT 0356 (Tri.-Bang.), this Tribunal had occasion to consider a similar dispute and it was held that a digital camera accompanying video camera was classifiable under sub-heading 8525.40, whereas a web camera would be classifiable under Heading 8473.30 or 84.71. For the sake of clarity of ratio, we reproduce Para 8 of the Tribunal's order hereunder:

"8. In terms of Chapter Note 5, a unit is to be regarded as being a part of a complete system if it meets all of the following conditions:

(a) It is of a kind solely or principally used in an automatic data processing system;

(b) It is connectable to the central processing unit either directly or through one or more other units; and

(c) It is able to accept or deliver data in a form (codes or signals) which can be used by the system.

The web camera has all the conditions in terms of Note 5 (B). In terms of 5 (E), only machines performing a specific function and do not function in conjunction with an automatic data processing machine are required to be classified in the headings appropriate to their respective functions or, failing that, in residual headings. Even as per Note 5 (E), the Commissioner has noted that the item does not have a specific function as it works in conjunction with an automatic data processing machine. Therefore both the authorities have fallen in error in considering the item as Digital Camera. The Notification No. 76/ 04-Cus. dated 26.7.2004 has exempted CPU and CPU with monitor, mouse and keyboard and web camera imported separately. Although the WCO Committee have noticed certain features of Digital camera and Web camera and according to their Minutes of Meeting mentioned in Para 27 of the Order-in-Original, admittedly, web camera functions along with PC. Therefore the earlier judgment of the Tribunal in case of Karamchand Thapar & Bros. (C.S.) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay, holding that camera and other spares/accessories also fall under Heading 84.71 in terms of Note 4 of Section XVI is a correct order which is required to be followed to a situation prior to and subsequent to the amendment. We are of the considered opinion that only the Digital camera which keeps in company into Video Camera would be classifiable under Heading 8525.40 whereas the web camera would be classifiable under chapter 8473.30 or 84.71. The appellants succeed in their Appeals No. C/26/2003 and C/62/2003 and the same is allowed."

In the instant case, the dispute is 8525.40 versus 84.71, the latter claimed by the appellants. We find that the case law cited by them squarely supports their case.


2. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal is allowed.

Pronounced and dictated in the Court.

Equivalent 2009 (092) RLT 0406 (CESTAT-Mum.)

Equivalent 2009 (237) ELT 0608 (Tri. - Mumbai)