2015 (1) TMI 930 - HC - Customs

Penalty u/s 112(a) - 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 - Held that - The equipment is meant for one to one communication between the field and the studio with the help of GSM cellular network. It is at the studio that the signals are processed for the broadcast to the audience at large. In other words, the usage of the equipment is for transmitting the audio-video signals till the studio and not beyond that would necessarily suggest, the broadcasting from the studio to the public at large is done by a separate set of equipment available at the studio. The aspect of usage/function of the equipment, imported is a pure question of fact and no substantial question of law arises for the consideration of this Court in this appeal. Even on the aspect of perversity, we find the appellant has not placed along with the appeal, the copy of the literature relating to the equipment. We do not think, it is a fit case for this Court to interfere with the impugned order. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Customs Tribunal allowing appeal against confiscation of goods imported without requisite license.

Analysis:
The Commissioner of Customs challenged the Tribunal's order confiscating imported goods due to lack of necessary licenses. The respondent imported broadcasting equipment declared as a transmitter sub-system but found to be a live+ transmitter for television broadcasting, a restricted import. The respondent argued the equipment was for one-to-one communication, not broadcasting. The Commissioner classified the goods as a TV broadcast transmitter, but the Tribunal disagreed, stating the equipment transmitted signals from reporter to studio, not to the public. The Tribunal found the equipment unsuitable for public broadcast and overturned the confiscation order.

The Commissioner contended the imported equipment was a TV broadcast transmitter requiring a license. The Court observed the equipment facilitated communication between field and studio via GSM network, with public broadcast done separately at the studio. The Court found no legal issue, as the equipment's function was factual. The Court dismissed the appeal, noting the lack of equipment literature and no grounds for interference. The appeal was rejected, and costs were not awarded.

In summary, the case involved a dispute over the classification and usage of imported broadcasting equipment, with the Tribunal ruling the equipment was not a TV broadcast transmitter requiring a license. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the equipment's communication function and lack of grounds for legal intervention.