Full News
Customs Classification Dispute: Mi Web Cameras
Customs Tribunal Rules in Favor of M/s. Xiaomi Technology India Ltd in Mi Web Camera Classification Dispute
Customs Tribunal Rules in Favor of M/s. Xiaomi Technology India Ltd in Mi Web Camera Classification Dispute
The Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of M/s. Xiaomi Technology India Ltd in a customs classification dispute regarding the import of Mi Web Cameras. The appellant argued that the web cameras should be classified under Chapter Heading 8473, while the Revenue’s representative contended that they should be classified under Chapter Heading 8525. After considering the arguments, the Tribunal held that the Mi Web Cameras are rightly classifiable under Chapter Heading 8473.
Case Name:
M/s. Xiaomi Technology India Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore
Key Takeaways:
- The appellant, M/s. Xiaomi Technology India Ltd, imported Mi Web Cameras and classified them under Chapter Heading 8473 3099 as parts and accessories of Automatic Data Processing (ADP) Machines.
- The original authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) classified the products under Chapter heading 8525 8010, stating that the web camera imported by the appellant was a standalone item.
- The appellant argued that the Mi Web Camera is solely and principally used with the ADP machine and cannot function independently, citing previous tribunal decisions and HSN explanatory notes to support their claim.
- The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the Mi Web Cameras are rightly classifiable under Chapter Heading 8473 and setting aside the impugned order.
Case Synopsis:
A customs appeal case between M/s. Xiaomi Technology India Ltd and the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore. The case revolves around the classification of Mi Web Cameras imported by the appellant under the Customs Tariff Act.
The appellant, M/s. Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited, imported Mi Web Cameras and classified them under Chapter Heading 8473 3099 as parts and accessories of Automatic Data Processing (ADP) Machines. However, the original authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) classified the products under Chapter heading 8525 8010, stating that the web camera imported by the appellant was a standalone item, unlike in other cases where the web camera was imported along with the ADP machine.
The appellant argued that the Mi Web Camera consists of a camera lens, a USB plug to connect exclusively to an ADP machine, and a clamping slot. They claimed that the web camera is solely and principally used with the ADP machine and cannot function independently. The appellant also cited previous tribunal decisions and HSN explanatory notes to support their claim that the web camera should be classified under Chapter Heading 8473.
On the other hand, the Revenue’s representative argued that as per HSN Explanatory Notes, Web Cams are classifiable under Chapter Heading 8525 and therefore, the impugned order needs to be upheld.
The Tribunal, after considering the arguments from both sides, referred to previous tribunal decisions and HSN explanatory notes to make its decision. The Tribunal held that the Mi Web Cameras are rightly classifiable under Chapter Heading 8473 and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal of the appellant.
FAQ:
Q1: What was the dispute about?
A1: The dispute revolved around the classification of Mi Web Cameras imported by M/s. Xiaomi Technology India Ltd under the Customs Tariff Act.
Q2: What were the arguments presented by the appellant?
A2: The appellant argued that the Mi Web Cameras are solely and principally used with the ADP machine and should be classified under Chapter Heading 8473 as parts and accessories suitable for use solely or principally with machines of Heading 8470 to 8471.
Q3: What was the decision of the Tribunal?
A3: The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the Mi Web Cameras are rightly classifiable under Chapter Heading 8473 and setting aside the impugned order.
