WPC licence requirement for wireless imports depends on technical examination and fresh adjudication, with remand treated as permissible.

Remand under Customs appellate procedure was treated as permissible where the earlier order had been set aside for want of proper hearing and further adjudication was needed. On the wireless access point issue, the text notes that importability depended on whether WPC permission was required at the relevant time, and that later clarification could not automatically apply retrospectively. Because the technical character of the goods was central, samples were to be examined by WPC and the matter was to be decided again on fresh adjudication after technical verification.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was competent to remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decision after hearing the appellant; (ii) whether the impugned wireless access point required a Wireless Planning and Coordination Wing licence at the relevant time and whether the issue should be determined on technical examination of the goods.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was competent to remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decision after hearing the appellant.

Analysis: The matter was examined in the context of Section 128A of the Customs Act. The remand was challenged as being beyond the appellate authority's power, but the record showed that the earlier order had been set aside for want of proper hearing and further adjudication was required. In that setting, remand was treated as permissible and not illegal.

Conclusion: The remand order was upheld and the objection to the Commissioner (Appeals)' competence was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned wireless access point required a Wireless Planning and Coordination Wing licence at the relevant time and whether the issue should be determined on technical examination of the goods.

Analysis: The dispute centered on whether the imported goods were freely importable or still required WPC permission. The Tribunal noted that the relied-upon notifications and clarifications indicated free importability of certain wireless items but also carried riders referring to compliance with WPC requirements. It further held that the later clarification could not automatically operate retrospectively for the import in question. Since the exact technical applicability to the impugned goods required expert examination, the Tribunal directed that samples be sent to WPC for a technical report to ermine the specifications and the need for licence at the relevant time.

Conclusion: The question whether a WPC licence was required for the impugned goods was left to be determined on technical report at the stage of fresh adjudication.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent that the matter was sent back for technical verification and fresh decision, while the remand and the need for further adjudication were sustained.

---