9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (1) TMI 858 - HC - CustomsInterpretation of statute - word and as appearing in CTI 8517 (iv) is to be read in a disjunctive manner and thus be viewed as referring to separate products - whether the WAPs, which work on MIMO technology, imported by the respondent would qualify for an exemption from Basic Customs Duty? - HELD THAT - It is apposite to note that the present appeal was heard along with captioned Commissioner of Customs Air Chennai-VII Commissionerate v. M/s Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. 2025 (1) TMI 797 - DELHI HIGH COURT , filed by the Revenue, assailing a similar order passed by the learned CESTAT. These appeals were admitted on the same question of law by this Court. By way of judgment delivered today in Commissioner of Customs Air Chennai-VII Commissionerate v. M/s Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. 2025 (1) TMI 797 - DELHI HIGH COURT , the question of law is answered in favour of the respondent and against the Revenue, and it is held that the phrase MIMO and LTE Products in Serial No. 13 (iv) of the amended N/N. 24/2005 applies solely to products combining MIMO technology and LTE standards, and thus, the WAPs imported by the respondent, which employ MIMO technology but not the LTE standards, are entitled to the exemption from Basic Customs Duty. Conclusion - The WAPs imported by the respondent, which employ MIMO technology but not LTE standards, qualify for the customs duty exemption under Serial No. 13 (iv) of the amended N/N. 24/2005. The order of the learned CESTAT does not suffer from any infirmity or error and, is, therefore upheld - Appeal dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED The core legal question considered in this judgment is: Whether the word "and" as appearing in Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 8517 (iv) should be read in a disjunctive manner, thereby referring to separate products, or as a conjunctive, referring to products combining both technologies. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents The case revolves around the interpretation of exclusion entry (iv) under Serial No. 13 of the amended Notification No. 24/2005-Customs, which pertains to customs duty exemptions. The notification was amended by Notification No. 11/2014, specifying that products with "MIMO and LTE" technologies are not entitled to exemptions. The key legal framework includes the Customs Act, 1962, and relevant notifications under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The court also referenced the principles established in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Co. and Ors., which emphasized strict interpretation of exemption notifications. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning The court examined whether the conjunction "and" in the phrase "MIMO and LTE Products" should be interpreted as conjunctive or disjunctive. The court leaned towards a conjunctive interpretation, meaning that the exemption exclusion applies only to products that incorporate both MIMO and LTE technologies. The court emphasized the dictionary definitions of "and" as a conjunctive term, used to connect and join elements, supporting the interpretation that both technologies must be present in a single product for the exclusion to apply. Key Evidence and Findings The court considered the language of the notification and the absence of the word "products" after "MIMO" as indicative that the exclusion applies to products combining both technologies. The court also noted that similar exemptions had been granted in other cases and subsequent notifications, suggesting a consistent interpretation favoring the respondent's position. Application of Law to Facts The court applied the strict interpretation principle to the notification, concluding that the Wireless Access Points (WAPs) imported by the respondent, which solely utilized MIMO technology, were eligible for the customs duty exemption. The court found that the respondent's interpretation aligned with the notification's language and intent, and that the Revenue's interpretation would unjustly broaden the exclusion's scope. Treatment of Competing Arguments The Revenue argued for a disjunctive interpretation, suggesting that the exclusion should apply to products with either MIMO or LTE technology. The court rejected this argument, noting that the language of the notification did not support such an interpretation. The court also dismissed the Revenue's reliance on the decision in Sree Durga Distributors v. State of Karnataka, finding it inapplicable to the present case. Conclusions The court concluded that the WAPs imported by the respondent, which operated solely on MIMO technology, were entitled to the customs duty exemption. The court upheld the decisions of the Adjudicating Authority and the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), which had both ruled in favor of the respondent. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning "The sole dispute in this appeal is whether this exclusion clause covers products having only MIMO technology and not working on LTE standard. Exclusion clause (iv) uses the conjunction 'and' and, therefore, it can be urged that the scope of clause (iv) can be restricted to those products that have MIMO and LTE both..." "What needs to be remembered is that MIMO is a technology and cannot be treated as an independent product. If the intention was to exclude even products having only MIMO technology, then the word 'products' should have been used after MIMO as well as after LTE." Core Principles Established
Final Determinations on Each Issue The court determined that the WAPs imported by the respondent, which employ MIMO technology but not LTE standards, qualify for the customs duty exemption under Serial No. 13 (iv) of the amended Notification No. 24/2005. The court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CESTAT's interpretation and findings.
|
