Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (11) TMI 1343

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion. The Explanation as above provides for addition of the charges towards this service also - addition of the above changes paid by appellant to supplier, to the declared value for purpose of charging duty is upheld. Decided partly against appellant - part matter on remand. - Customs Appeal No.51769-51770 of 2016 - C/A/57742-57743/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 9-11-2017 - Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri Monish Panda, Advocate for the Appellants -Assessee Shri Govind Dixit, AR for the Respondent -Revenue ORDER Per: V. Padmanabhan The appeal is against the order in original number 19/2015 dated 29.12.2015. The appellant imported certain goods at air cargo complex, New Delhi and filed Bill of Entry 2660085 dated 26.6.2003. They declared the goods as Multiplexor Satellite Receivers, test and measurement equipment etc. and attached six invoices covering 19 items imported. They indicated individual classification for the various items under Chapter 84 /85 of the Customs Tariff. The bill of entry was assessed as per declaration and applicable customs duty was paid. Subsequently, information was received from S .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... venue. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued as follows: (i). The impugned order has been passed without giving opportunity to the importer to file written reply and without personal hearing. (ii). There is no application for Rule 4 to section XVI in the present case. The terms Head End has been used to refer to the equipments which are used to provide cable TV services with Conditional Access System. It comprises of several equipments, each with its own electronic function, meriting individual classification. The department has wrongly classified the set of equipments under Chapter 85 calling it as Head End . 6. The appellant also made an alternate submission on classification of the imported goods if they are deemed to be Head End . It will merit classification under CETH 8525 2019 as a transmission apparatus and not in 8543 as contended by the department. There is no undervaluation of the imported goods and the department has incorrectly included the amount towards software and post import services by ignoring the revised offer submitted by the foreign supplier and the purchase orders placed by the appellants. They also relied on the following case .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed under 19 serial numbers. Individual classification of these equipments were also indicated but during examination of the goods, it was found that only 8 number of goods were found as several cards were already assembled and embedded into the main unit. The investigation by the department revealed that the order placed by the appellant on M/s. Tandbarg, UK supplier is for supply of a suite of equipments which will function together as Head end for cable TV operations. After inter-connecting all the imported equipments these were to be used for transmission of cable TV under the Conditional Access System. 10. The adjudicating authority has taken the view that all the equipments, after inter connection, will contribute towards a common function and hence in terms of Section Note 4 to section XVI the same will be classifiable under 8543. Section Note 4 to Section XVI is reproduced below: 4. Where a machine (including a combination of machines) consists of individual components (whether separate or interconnected by piping, by transmission devices, by electric cables or by other devices) intended to contribute together to a clearly defined function covered by one of the hea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on, and not apparatus for reception, is hence not of significance. 9. The explanatory notes included in Heading 85.25 television transmitters for industrial use explaining that with these apparatus, the transmission is often by line. They include in Heading 85.28 television receivers for industrial use explaining also with the apparatus, the transmission is often by line. It is not possible to conclude from this as the departmental representative wants us to do, that where transmission is by line, the goods should be classified in Heading 85.28. The real answer is transmission referred to in the Heading 85.25 refers to the transmission made by the transmitter for industrial use and the transmission by line referred to in the reception apparatus of Heading 85.28 refers to the transmission that is received by such apparatus by line. Obviously, if the transmission apparatus transmits the signal by line, the corresponding reception apparatus will necessarily receive the signal that is transmitted, only by line, we are unable to see the relevance of this point to the classification of the goods under consideration. 13. Similar views have also been held in the case of Commi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... actually paid or payable for the imported goods, notwithstanding the fact that such goods may be subjected to the said process after importation of such goods. 16 Since the software is already incorporated in the imported goods the value of same is required to be added to the transaction value. Likewise the purchase order also includes the process of installation of equipment after importation. The Explanation as above provides for addition of the charges towards this service also. 17. In view of the above discussions, that addition of the above changes paid by appellant to supplier, to the declared value for purpose of charging duty is upheld. 18 In the result, the classification of imported goods are ordered to be done 8525 and not under 8543 as held by the adjudicating authority. We uphold the addition in the assessable value made in the impugned order. 19. In view of the mis-declaration established in respect of valuation, the imported goods will be liable for confiscation under section 111 of the Customs Act and the appellant will also be liable for penalty. 20. The issue is to be remanded to the adjudicating authority only for the purpose of recomputing t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates