2025 (12) TMI 462 - AT - Customs

Multimedia speakers with USB/FM held classifiable under CTH 8518, MRP-based valuation under CTH 8527 rejected

M/s. Skylark Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Sailesh Badiani, Director Versus Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata

CESTAT Kolkata held that the imported multimedia speakers with ancillary features such as USB/SD card/MMC playback and/or FM radio are correctly ... Classification of imported multimedia speakers with additional functions - to be classified under the CTH 8518 or otherwise? - non-declared, suppressed/reduced MRP/RSP - HELD THAT:- The issue of classification of the impugned goods viz., Multimedia speakers, is no longer res integra, as the classification of the said goods under the CTH 8518 has been upheld by various Tribunals and the said decisions have been affirmed by the Hon'ble High Courts. In support of this view, reference made to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Jupiter Green Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata [2025 (6) TMI 1363 - CESTAT KOLKATA], wherein in it has been held that 'the appellant has rightly classified the multimedia speakers with added ancillary features of USB/SD card/ MMC Playback and/ or FM radio under CTH 8518.' A similar issue was once again analysed by this Tribunal in the case of Santosh Radio Products vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port) [2025 (11) TMI 1041 - CESTAT KOLKATA] wherein, by relying on the decision in Jupiter Green Energy Pvt. Ltd. [2025 (6) TMI 1363 - CESTAT KOLKATA], the Tribunal has set aside the re-classification of similar goods under CTH 85279100 by the Revenue. The appellant-company has rightly classified the Multimedia Speakers in question, imported by them, under Chapter Heading 8518, where MRP based price is not applicable. Thus, there are no merit in the reclassification of the goods under the CTH 85279100 by the Revenue and accordingly, the same is set aside. Appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether the imported multimedia speakers with additional functions (USB/SD/MMC/FM/Bluetooth etc.) are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 8518 or under 8519/8527/85279100. 1.2 Consequent upon the correct classification, whether assessment on MRP/RSP basis, re-assessment of CVD, confiscation of goods, and imposition of interest and penalties on the appellants are legally sustainable. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Classification of multimedia speakers Legal framework (as discussed) 2.1 The dispute turned on the proper classification of multimedia speakers with in-built features such as USB/SD/MMC playback, FM radio, Bluetooth, remote control and amplifier, between CTH 8518 (loudspeakers/audio frequency apparatus) and CTH 8519/8527/85279100 (sound recording or reproducing apparatus / radio-broadcast receivers, attracting CVD on RSP basis). 2.2 The Court considered binding and persuasive precedents on identical goods, including earlier decisions of the Tribunal and their affirmation by higher courts, holding such products classifiable under CTH 8518. Interpretation and reasoning 2.3 The Court noted that the impugned goods were described and imported as 'Multimedia Speakers/Computer Speakers', comprising sub-woofer and satellite speakers with in-built amplifier and capability to reproduce sound over a wide frequency range, often with multiple drivers and remote-control operation. 2.4 The Court observed that the issue of classification of multimedia speakers with ancillary features (USB/SD card/MMC playback and/or FM radio, Bluetooth, etc.) has already been examined 'in extenso' in prior decisions, where rival headings 8518 and 8527/8519 had been considered and rejected in favour of 8518. 2.5 The Court relied on earlier Tribunal rulings, including Logic India Trading Company, ONKYO SIGHT & SOUND INDIA PVT. LTD., and multiple decisions in the case of Jupiter group and Santosh Radio Products, wherein similar multimedia speakers/audio systems with additional playback and radio functions were consistently held classifiable under CTH 8518, and not under 8527/8519/85279100. 2.6 It was specifically noted that the matter had been examined by various Benches and affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Courts, rendering the classification dispute no longer 'res integra'. 2.7 Following these precedents, the Court found that the essential character of the imported goods remained that of multimedia speakers/audio-frequency amplifying and reproducing equipment under CTH 8518, and that the added features did not justify reclassification as radio receivers or sound recording/reproducing apparatus under 8519/8527/85279100. Conclusions 2.8 The Court held that the appellant-company had correctly classified the imported multimedia speakers under CTH 8518. 2.9 The reclassification of the goods by the Revenue under CTH 85279100 (or 8519/8527) was found to be unsustainable and was set aside. Issue 2 - Validity of MRP-based assessment, re-assessment, confiscation, interest and penalties Interpretation and reasoning 2.10 The Court observed that MRP/RSP-based CVD assessment and the entire re-assessment were premised on the Revenue's reclassification of the goods under headings that attract RSP-based levy (CTH 8519/8527/85279100). 2.11 Having held that the correct classification is under CTH 8518, the Court held that 'MRP based price is not applicable' for such goods, thereby nullifying the foundation for the alleged suppression/misdeclaration of RSP/MRP and the consequential re-determination of CVD. 2.12 Since the reclassification and MRP-based re-assessment were set aside, the consequential actions-confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, demand of differential duty/CVD with interest, and penalties under Sections 114A, 114AA and 112(a)-could not be sustained. Conclusions 2.13 MRP/RSP-based assessment of CVD on the impugned goods was held inapplicable in view of their correct classification under CTH 8518. 2.14 The re-assessment of CVD, confiscation orders, and all consequential demands of duty and interest were set aside. 2.15 Penalties imposed on the appellant-company and its director under Sections 114A, 114AA and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 were also set aside. 2.16 The impugned appellate order was quashed, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief as per law.