TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1343
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ainst the appellant for import of similar goods at Bombay. Accordingly, Provisional Assessment was been ordered under section 18 of the Customs Act. 2 The investigation undertaken at the Mumbai revealed as follows: The importer had placed the order at UK for purchase of equipments - one set for Mumbai and another set for Delhi. Each set of equipment, taken together constituted "Head End" for cable TV operations". The "Head End" was an equipment at a local TV office that originates the cable TV services and cable TV modem services to subscriber though Conditional Access System (CAS). All imported equipments taken together contributes towards a clearly refined function i.e. "Head End" for cable TV operations. The complete set of equipment together merits classification under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 8543 8999, in the light of section 4 to section XVI. Thus, it appeared that individual classification indicated for 19 imported items amounts to mis-declaration. The search operation carried by SIIB, ACC, Mumbai at the premises of importer further revealed that the importer had also mis-declared the value of the imported consignments at Delhi and Mumbai. They had suppressed the valu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m) ], and Essar Steel Ltd. [2004 (178) ELT 713 (Tri-Bang)] 7. The learned DR justified the impugned order. In his written note dated 11.9.2017, DR emphasised the following: 1. The goods imported were classified under different headings but were found to be complete equipment (i.e. Head End) classified under 8543 8999. Out of 19 items indicated in the Bill of Entry, physically only 8 items were presented since several cards were already assembled in the main unit. 2. The investigation lead to the recovery of several incriminating documents, which revealed that the importer had not given proper description in the bill of entry, but the goods imported were complete "Head End" and not parts. 3. "Service charges" covered by invoice No. 27110 dated 17.6.2003 amounting to USD 1,00,019 was includible in the assessable value since it pertains to the service charges. Further Brigadier Deshpande, Vice President in his letter dated 26.6.03 has submitted that the software covered by invoice dated 26.6.03 was already embedded in the equipment. However, the importer failed to declare the value of the software. The imported equipments are not classifiable under transmission apparatus under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t purchase order, we note that different equipments have been ordered which are meant to be interconnected in such a way as to perform a common clearly defined function. This is the function of "Head End". Department has taken a view that this function is to be classified under 8543. But this heading is a residual heading only for machines not included elsewhere. The function performed by "Head End" is that of transmission of TV channels over cable TV. Such a function will be clearly covered by the heading 8525 which is reproduced below: "Transmission apparatus for radio telephony, radio-telegraphy, radio-broadcasting or television, whether or not incorporating reception apparatus or sound recording or reproducing apparatus; television, cameras; still image video cameras and other video camera recorders; digital cameras." 12. We find similar equipments were held to be classified under 8525 in the case of Set India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC (supra) wherein the Tribunal has observed that "8. These goods therefore should equally be described as transmission incorporating reception apparatus. It is significant to consider similar goods in Heading 85.25 which includes transmission apparatus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8525. The differential duty payable is required to be requantified and for this purpose the case is required to be remanded. 14. Next we consider the question of valuation. During the course of investigation the department has recovered the purchase order which was placed by the appellant on the supplier. From this, it is evident that the supply included, apart from supply of equipment, also the necessary software which is to be embedded in the equipment before supply of the same. The PO further includes setting up of equipments in India after receipt thereof in this country. The adjudicating authority has included both the above values for purposes of charging customs duty. 15. The Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 provide the methodology for determination of assessable value in cases where transaction value does not reflect the true value of import transaction. Rule 10 provides for addition of certain cost and services under certain conditions. What is relevant in the present case is Rule 10 which is as under: (1) In determining the transaction value, there shall be added to the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods - (....