2014 (4) TMI 265 - AT - Customs

Import of Equipment - Restricted item or not - Transmitter Broadcasting Equipment Sub-system (Data Processing Unit with transmitting capabilities for broadcasting, software and other standard accessories - The classification of the goods was claimed as Transmitter Broadcasting Equipment Sub-System under Heading No.85255030 which as per the Exim Policy, is a freely importable item without any import licence Revenue of the view that import goods are complete equipment which is used to transmit live audio/video signals for broadcasting and that the same would be correctly classifiable under sub-heading no.85255020 and requre licence. Held that - The equipment, in question, is merely for transmission of audio and video signals by a reporter from some place to his studio through GSM cellular network and it is from the studio that the audio/video recording is broadcasted to the public The goods covered under 85255010 and 85255020 are Radio broadcast treatment and TV broadcast transmitter respectively - Every transmitter is not a broadcast transmitter for public reception - The equipment which can merely transmit some audio or video signals from one place to another place and is not capable of transmitting the signals which can be received by general public cannot be called broadcast equipment - What is covered under Heading No.85255010 and 85255020 are the transmitter which can transmit radio or TV programme intended for reception by public and it is such equipment which are restricted for import - Since the equipment imported cannot transmit the signals for reception by general public but is meant only for transmitting the audio or video signals by a reporter from some place to his studio from where the signals are broadcasted for general public, the equipment cannot be classified under Heading no.85255020 and so, the same would not be restricted for import - The impugned order is not sustainable - Thus, the order is set aside - The appeal is allowed Decided in favour of Appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported goods under Customs Act, 1962; Confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962; Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962; Applicability of Heading No.85255030 for imported goods; Appeal against order of Commissioner for confiscation of goods; Disposal of goods during pendency of appeal; Classification of goods under Heading No.85176290; Interpretation of terms 'broadcast' and 'broadcasting'; Defending impugned order based on Commissioner's findings; Consideration of submissions from both sides.

Detailed Analysis:
The case involved the classification of imported goods under the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant imported goods declared as "Transmitter Broadcasting Equipment Sub-system" under Heading No.85255030. However, upon examination, the assessing officers believed the goods were not as declared but were complete equipment used for live television broadcasting, falling under sub-heading no.85255020, which required an import license. A show cause notice was issued, leading to confiscation of goods and imposition of a penalty by the Commissioner. The appellant filed an appeal challenging this order.

During the pendency of the appeal, a miscellaneous application was filed to restrain the department from disposing of the goods, but it was later dismissed as the goods had already been auctioned. The appellant argued that the imported goods should be classified under Heading No.85176290 as equipment for transmission of audio/video signals, not as TV broadcast transmitters. They cited technical definitions of 'broadcast' to support their claim.

The Departmental Representative defended the impugned order, stating that the goods were indeed meant for live television broadcasting based on the catalogue and literature accompanying the goods. The Commissioner's findings highlighted that the equipment was for transmission purposes between a field reporter and the studio, not for direct public reception.

Upon considering both sides' submissions and perusing the records, the Tribunal found that the equipment in question was for transmitting audio/video signals from a reporter to the studio, not for direct public reception. As such, it did not fall under the restricted category of Heading No.85255020 for TV broadcast transmitters. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the correct classification of the imported goods under the Customs Act, emphasizing the distinction between equipment for transmission purposes and broadcast transmitters meant for public reception. The decision highlighted the technical functionality of the goods in question and their intended use for transmitting signals between locations, ultimately leading to the allowance of the appeal.