2014 (9) TMI 679 - HC - Customs

Court Upholds Decision on Imported Goods Classification Under Customs Act

Commissioner of Customs Versus M/s. Dejero Logix Pvt. Ltd.

The High Court dismissed the appeal concerning the classification of imported goods under the Customs Act, 1962. The dispute centered on whether the ... Confiscation of Transmitter Broadcasting Equipment Sub-system (Data Processing Unit with transmitting capabilities for broadcasting), software and other standard accessories - not obtaining licence from the DGFT and WPC (Ministry of Telecommunication and Information Technology) - tribunal decided in favor of assessee - Held that:- the equipment is meant for one to one communication between the field and the studio with the help of GSM cellular network. It is at the studio that the signals are processed for the broadcast to the audience at large. In other words, the usage of the equipment is for transmitting the audio-video signals till the studio and not beyond that would necessarily suggest, the broadcasting from the studio to the public at large is done by a separate set of equipment available at the studio. The aspect of usage/function of the equipment, imported is a pure question of fact and no substantial question of law arises for the consideration of this Court in this appeal. - order of tribunal sustained - Decided against the revenue. Issues:Classification of imported goods under Customs Act, 1962.Applicability of licensing requirements for imported goods.Classification of Imported Goods:The appeal involved a dispute regarding the classification of goods imported by the respondent under the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent imported equipment declared as 'Transmitter Broadcasting Equipment Sub-system' but was found to be a live television broadcasting transmitter, a restricted item requiring a license. The Commissioner and Tribunal disagreed on the correct classification. The Tribunal concluded that the equipment was for one-to-one communication, not broadcasting to the public, and set aside the order-in-original. The High Court observed that the equipment's usage for transmitting signals to the studio, not beyond, indicated it was not for public broadcasting. The Court found no substantial legal question and dismissed the appeal, noting the absence of equipment literature with the appeal.Applicability of Licensing Requirements:The second issue revolved around the licensing requirements for the imported goods. The appellant argued that the equipment was a Television broadcast transmitter, restricted for import without the necessary license from the Ministry of Telecommunication and Information Technology. However, the respondent contended that the equipment was for one-to-one communication, not public broadcasting, and thus did not require the specific license. The High Court, after considering the equipment's function and usage, agreed with the respondent's interpretation. The Court emphasized that the equipment's purpose was limited to transmitting signals to the studio, not for public broadcast, and hence, the separate equipment at the studio facilitated public broadcasting. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating no grounds for interference with the Tribunal's decision.In conclusion, the judgment delved into the classification of imported goods under the Customs Act and the necessity of licensing requirements. The Court's analysis focused on the equipment's actual function and usage to determine its classification and the need for a specific license. By examining the technical aspects and purpose of the equipment, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the lack of grounds for legal intervention and dismissing the appeal.