2017 (3) TMI 348 - AT - Customs

Classification of goods - remote control for home theatre, home automation, viz, Crestron MTX-3 Panel System - whether the requirement of obtaining equipment type approval was mandatory? - Held that - The Rules, undoubtedly, are in the public domain. Moreover, it would appear that the intention of the Rules is to ensure that equipment capable of operating in the licensed frequencies are not manufactured under the guise of producing equipment for operation in de-licensed frequencies - The Wireless Planning Co-ordination Cell of the ministry of Telecommunications and Information Technology have a wide-ranging mandate to control wireless equipment in the country and may be approached by the appellant-commissioner for ensuring strict compliance of the Rules upon deployment of the said equipment if so empowered under the statute - application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay application based on order-in-appeal of Commissioner of Customs.
2. Enforcement of laws relating to wireless equipment.
3. Compliance with certification of 'equipment type approval' under relevant rules.
4. Prohibition of goods and option of redemption on payment of fine.
5. Urgency of holding up consignment and criticality of stay application.
6. Interpretation of Rules regarding equipment operating in licensed frequencies.
7. Applicability of restrictions on imported goods under ITC HS Code.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Stay application based on order-in-appeal of Commissioner of Customs
The case involved a stay application before the Appellate Tribunal based on an order-in-appeal of the Commissioner of Customs. The Hon'ble High Court had set aside the confiscation of imported remote control devices, leading to the appeal. The Tribunal noted the urgency of the stay application and the criticality of the matter.

Issue 2: Enforcement of laws relating to wireless equipment
The Customs authorities were empowered to enforce all laws, including those related to wireless equipment. The requirement of certification of 'equipment type approval' under relevant rules was deemed mandatory for compliance with laws relating to wireless equipment, which was considered crucial for national security.

Issue 3: Compliance with certification of 'equipment type approval' under relevant rules
The Tribunal considered the compliance aspect of 'equipment type approval' under the rules governing the use of low power equipment in specific frequency bands. The contention was made that strict enforcement of laws related to wireless equipment was necessary, and the importer had not taken necessary steps to comply despite opportunities provided.

Issue 4: Prohibition of goods and option of redemption on payment of fine
Even if the imported goods were prohibited, the Customs Act allowed for redemption on payment of a fine under section 125. The Tribunal considered this aspect while evaluating the validity of the impugned order and the necessity of a stay application.

Issue 5: Urgency of holding up consignment and criticality of stay application
The Tribunal deliberated on the urgency and criticality of holding up the consignment based on the stay application. It noted that the Revenue had not initially sought a stay on the implementation of the appellate order, indicating that the urgency was not previously considered by the authorities.

Issue 6: Interpretation of Rules regarding equipment operating in licensed frequencies
The Tribunal analyzed the rules regarding equipment operating in licensed frequencies and the intention behind certification requirements. It considered the public availability of rules and the applicability of restrictions on imported goods under the ITC HS Code.

Issue 7: Applicability of restrictions on imported goods under ITC HS Code
The Tribunal examined the applicability of restrictions on imported goods under the ITC HS Code and the role of licensing authorities in waiving such restrictions. It concluded that there were no specific restrictions applicable to the imported goods in question, as indicated by the absence of relevant entries in the Schedule.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the stay application, citing insufficient justification at that stage but acknowledged the concerns raised by the Authorized Representative regarding compliance with rules related to wireless equipment. It suggested approaching the relevant authorities for ensuring strict compliance in the future.