COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Vs. DEJERO LOGIX PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the Commissioner of Customs under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 challenging the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal', in short) dated January 29, 2014 whereby the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent -herein against the order -in - original dated October 25, 2012 of the Commissioner of Customs (I and G) confiscating the goods imported by the respondent without any requisite licence from the DGFT and WPC (Ministry of Telecommunication and Information Technology) and further imposing a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (Act, in short).

(2.) THE relevant facts in brief are that the respondent had filed bill of entry No. 7687005 dated August 17, 2012 for clearance of goods declared as "Transmitter Broadcasting Equipment Sub -system (Data Processing Unit with transmitting capabilities for broadcasting), software and other standard accessories " which were valued at US Dollar 91,500. The assessable value of the goods worked out to be Rs. 51,70,619/ -. On examination, to ascertain the correct nature of the goods by the Examination Officer, it was found that the goods under import were live+ transmitter for the live television broadcasting and not broadcasting equipment Sub -system as declared by the respondent. As per ITC (HS) classification of export and import items, the import of T.V. broadcast transmitter was/is restricted and not permitted to be imported, except against a licence to be issued by the WPC Wing of Ministry of Telecommunication and Information Technology. It was the case of the respondent before the Commissioner that the equipment imported is meant for one to one communication between the field reporter and studio. The signal is captured by devices such as Cameras (not part of the equipment), relayed to the studio with this device with the help of GSM Cellular network. The studio processes the signals and broadcasts to the audience. Thus, the device is merely a communication part using the GSM network for transmission and thus, may be classified as CTH 8517. The Commissioner, after considering an independent opinion submitted by the respondent and considering the general rules of interpretation was of the following view:

(3.) IN appeal, the case of the respondent was on similar lines as was before the Commissioner. It is also the case that every transmission is not video or T.V. broadcast. The respondent relied upon the McGraw Hill Encyclopaedia of Science and Technology to contend the word "Broadcast " means the transmission of the radio and television programmes that are intended for general public reception as distinguished from private signals that are directed to specific receivers and the equipment is incapable of transmitting audio or video signal directly for reception by the general public.