DEJERO LOGIX PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to filing of this appeal and miscellaneous application are, in brief, as under: -

(2.) SHRI B.L. Narsimhan pleaded that the goods imported are classifiable under Heading No. 8517 62 90 as "other apparatus for transmission of voice, images or other data including apparatus for communication in a wired or wireless network", that the equipment imported transmits the audio and video signals recorded at a site to the studio through the GSM network, that the equipment, in question, by itself cannot broadcast the audio or video signals and hence the same is not covered by Heading No. 8525 50 20 as T.V. broadcast transmitter, which is restricted for import, that at the most it can be called broadcast equipment sub -system covered by sub -heading No. 8525 50 30, which is freely importable, that every transmission is not radio or TV broadcast, that as per the McGraw -Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, terms 'broadcast' means a television or radio transmission intended for public reception, that in terms of The New Encyclopedia Britannica, the term "broadcasting" 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, that the equipment, in question, is incapable of transmitting audio or video signals directly for reception by the general public, that sub -heading No. 8525 50 10 covers radio broadcasting equipment and sub -heading 8525 50 20 covers T.V. broadcasting equipment, both of which are the equipments which can transmit radio or television programme for general public and it is these equipments which are restricted for import, that since the equipment imported can only transmit the audio and video signals through cellular network from the place of recording to the studio, from where the signals are broadcasted for general public, the equipment, in question, cannot be called the equipments for television broadcast or radio broadcast, that in this regard, the Commissioner in Para 3.5 of the impugned order has given a clear finding that the goods imported are a standalone piece for transmission of audio or video signals between the field reporter and studio, that from this finding of the Commissioner, it is clear that the equipment is not meant for television or radio broadcast, that when the goods are not classifiable under sub -heading No. 8525 50 20, the same are freely importable and that in any case, the impugned order ordering absolute confiscation of the goods which are held to be restricted and not prohibited, is contrary to the provisions of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. He, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order is not sustainable.

(3.) WE have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records.