2004 (8) TMI 286 - AT - Customs

Tribunal rules CDMA phones aren't 'Cellular Phones' for tariff exemption, broader interpretation applied.

The Tribunal ruled that CDMA Fixed Wireless Telephones did not qualify as 'Cellular Phones' for exemption under Customs Tariff Heading 8525.20.17. The ... Phone - Valuation (Customs) - Interpretation of statute Issues:Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Heading 8525.20.17, interpretation of the term 'Cellular Phones' for exemption eligibility, determination of whether the imported item is a complete telephone or part thereof, valuation of software imported separately.Classification Issue:The appellants imported CDMA Fixed Wireless Telephones (FWT) and claimed classification under Customs Tariff Heading 8525.20.17 with exemption under Notification 21/02-Cus. The department denied the exemption, arguing that the imported item did not qualify as a 'Cellular Phone.' The Tribunal analyzed common parlance and held that the imported item, although working on cellular technology and portable, did not fit the common understanding of a 'cellular phone' as a hand-held mobile phone. Consequently, the item was classified under Customs Tariff Heading 85.20.19, and the exemption was denied.Interpretation of 'Cellular Phones' Issue:The Tribunal considered conflicting interpretations of the term 'Cellular Phones.' The Commissioner's view that the term should include all phones working on cellular technology, regardless of size, was supported by the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the restriction of the term to only hand-held mobile phones, emphasizing that the notification did not specify such a limitation. Expert opinions and technical understanding were deemed more relevant than personal interpretations in determining the classification of high-tech products like cellular phones.Complete Telephone or Part Thereof Issue:The Commissioner determined that the imported item had the essential character of a complete telephone, even though it lacked some components. The Tribunal upheld this finding, stating that the absence of certain items did not change the essential nature of the telephone. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner's valuation method, ruling that software imported separately should not be considered an essential part of the telephone for duty levy purposes.Valuation Issue:Regarding the valuation of software imported separately, the Tribunal found that the software enhanced the performance of the telephone but was not an essential part. Thus, the Commissioner's decision to add the software value for duty calculation was overturned. The Tribunal also rejected the plea to refer the matter to a Larger Bench, citing the lack of merit. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order.