The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has upheld a customs duty demand exceeding ₹2.14 crore against a mobile phone manufacturer, ruling that imported camera modules used in smartphones cannot be treated as “Digital Still Image Video Cameras” for the purpose of claiming exemption from Social Welfare Surcharge (SWS).

The bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) noted that two conditions had to be satisfied for claiming the exemption: the goods must be classifiable under CTH 85258020; and the goods must answer the description of a “Digital Still Image Video Camera.” 

The dispute arose from imports of “camera modules for cellular mobile phones” classified under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 85258020. The importer had claimed exemption from Basic Customs Duty (BCD) under Notification No. 57/2017-Cus and exemption from Social Welfare Surcharge under Notification No. 11/2018-Cus. 

While Notification No. 57/2017 initially provided BCD exemption for several mobile phone components, including camera modules, the Government amended the notification through Notification No. 37/2018-Cus dated April 2, 2018, specifically withdrawing the exemption for camera modules and imposing a 10% BCD. 

The Customs Department subsequently alleged that the importer had also wrongly availed exemption from SWS by treating camera modules as “Digital Still Image Video Cameras” covered under Entry No. 30 of Notification No. 11/2018-Cus. A show cause notice was issued seeking recovery of customs duty amounting to ₹2,14,55,011 along with interest and penalties. 

The appellant contended that after the withdrawal of the BCD exemption in April 2018, it had paid the applicable BCD along with interest. However, it argued that the exemption from Social Welfare Surcharge remained available because Notification No. 11/2018-Cus was never amended to exclude camera modules. 

According to the company, camera modules were classifiable under CTH 85258020 and functionally qualified as “Digital Still Image Video Cameras” because they were capable of capturing both still images and videos in digital format. The appellant relied upon several judicial precedents, including decisions in Sony Electronics Inc. v. United States, Creative Newtech Ltd., and Panam Corporation, to support its interpretation. 

The company further argued that the Government’s specific exclusion of camera modules from the BCD exemption notification indicated that such products had originally been considered within the scope of “Digital Still Image Video Cameras.” 

The department maintained that camera modules are merely components of mobile phones and cannot independently function as digital cameras at the time of import. According to the Department, a genuine “Digital Still Image Video Camera” contains additional features such as internal storage devices, output terminals, viewfinders, and display systems, none of which are present in imported camera modules. 

The Department emphasized that camera modules become capable of performing camera functions only after integration into a mobile phone assembly and therefore cannot be treated as standalone digital cameras for exemption purposes. 

The Bench comprising Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and Mrs. Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member)observed that the sole controversy was whether camera modules imported for use in manufacturing mobile phones qualified for exemption from Social Welfare Surcharge under Entry No. 30 of Notification No. 11/2018-Cus. 

While the first condition was undisputed, the Tribunal found that the second condition was not met.

CESTAT held that the imported product was merely a component of a mobile phone and lacked the independent functionality of a digital still image video camera when imported. The Bench observed that although camera modules could eventually perform similar functions after assembly into smartphones, they did not possess essential features such as internal storage, display systems, output terminals, or viewfinders in their imported condition. 

The Tribunal drew support from a recent Supreme Court ruling in Commissioner of Customs v. Welkin Food, which held that eligibility for an exemption must be determined based on the condition of goods at the time of import and not on how they may be used or assembled later. 

The Bench emphasized the settled legal principle that exemption notifications must be interpreted strictly. Referring to the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Dilip Kumar & Co., the Tribunal reiterated that the burden lies on the importer to establish complete compliance with all conditions prescribed in an exemption notification. 

According to the Tribunal, the appellant failed to demonstrate that the imported camera modules themselves were “Digital Still Image Video Cameras” at the time of import. The fact that camera modules and digital cameras may share tariff classifications or perform similar functions after assembly was held insufficient to claim the exemption. 

Having concluded that the exemption under Notification No. 11/2018-Cus was unavailable, CESTAT upheld the customs duty demand, interest liability, confiscation of goods, and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal also observed that the importer had continued availing benefits even after the amendment withdrawing BCD exemption until the issue was pointed out by the Department, making the extended limitation provisions under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act applicable.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed as Time-Barred When Order Was Not Properly Served: CESTAT