2013 (5) TMI 437 - AT - Customs

Confiscation wireless equipment licence - Whether the wireless equipment purchased under an invoice by the appellant from M/s. A.T. Manufacturing Company is liable to confiscation? Held that - The appellants have installed the wireless equipment in their foreign going vessel for which no licence under Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is required. However, these Rules are not applicable for the situation when a wireless equipment was purchased by the appellant in the territorial India, which is not permissible, as per Ministry of Communication letter dated 27.7.1995. The wireless equipment purchased by the appellant is therefore, liable to confiscation. Whether option can be given to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine? - Held that - the wireless equipment purchased by the appellant under a valid invoice was installed on their foreign going vessel, which is permissible as per Rule 3 of Indian Wireless Telegraph (Foreign Ships) Rules, 1973. Destruction of wireless equipment will be required as per letter dated 27.7.1995 only in a situation where such wireless equipment is required to be retained within the jurisdiction of Indian Territory after purchase from the ship breaking activity. Thus, the wireless equipment purchased by the appellant and installed in their foreign going vessel was not required to be absolutely confiscated and ordered for destruction. Therefore, set-aside and case is remanded back to Commissioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether wireless equipment purchased by the appellant is liable to confiscation.
2. Whether an option can be given to the appellant to redeem the confiscated goods.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against an order in original dated 31.01.2012 in de-novo proceedings. The matter had been previously decided by the Commissioner and the CESTAT in earlier orders. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the Commissioner for fresh consideration, specifically regarding the exemption of the appellant from relevant rules and the entitlement to possess wireless sets without a license. The Tribunal set aside penalties and confiscations for certain goods, directing the Commissioner to reevaluate the case, especially focusing on the legality of possessing a GMDSS station. The appellant argued against the applicability of Ministry of Communication's letter dated 27.6.1995, emphasizing their vessel's foreign-going status and the source of wireless equipment. The AR contended for absolute confiscation based on the Ministry's instructions. The Tribunal examined the wireless equipment's purchase and installation on the foreign-going vessel, ultimately ruling that confiscation was not warranted, setting aside the Commissioner's order and remanding the case for redemption consideration.

2. The second issue revolved around whether the appellant should be allowed to redeem the confiscated goods. The Ministry's letter was scrutinized to determine the permissibility of buying and selling wireless equipment with a valid license. The Tribunal highlighted the legality of the appellant's purchase and installation of the wireless equipment on their foreign-going vessel under relevant rules. As the wireless equipment was not required to be retained within Indian territory post-purchase, the Tribunal concluded that absolute confiscation and destruction were not justified. Consequently, the Commissioner's order was set aside, and the case was remanded for the appellant to be given the option to redeem the goods upon payment of a suitable redemption fine. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the appellant's entitlement to redemption based on the legal analysis presented.