Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Xing International vs C.C. New Delhi (Import And General) on 4 May, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III
Customs Appeal No. C/50213/2016-Cu[DB]
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. CC(A)CUS/PREV38/2015 dated 21.01.2016 passed by Commr. (Appeal) Custom]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
Honble Mr. R. K. Singh, Member (Technical)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. Xing International ...Appellant
Vs.
C.C. New Delhi (Import and General) Respondent
Appearance:
Mr. Jatin Mahajan (Advocate) for the Appellant Mr. Vaibhav Bhatnagar (AR) for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. R. K. Singh, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing/ Decision.04.05.2016 Final Order No. 51761/2016 Per R. K. Singh:
The appeal is filed against order-in-appeal dated 27.01.2016 which upheld the order-in-original dated 19.10.2015 in terms of which it was held that the goods imported by the appellant answered the essential characteristics of Television in terms of Rule 2(a) of the General Rules of Interpretation of the Customs Tariff Act and as the sizes were 40, 42, 48 and 55 import of such goods required BIS registration which appellant did not have and therefore they were held liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and allowed to be redeemed for the re-export on fine of Rs. 50,000/-. Penalty of Rs. 25,000 was also imposed.
2. The appellant contended that it has placed orders for LED panels, the examination report of Customs officers as well as the re-examination report of Customs officers certified that the goods were LED panels and did not have speakers, remote controls, power cables, Mother board and sockets and therefore it cannot be said that the goods satisfied the essential characteristics of television. These goods were used for repairing of televisions or sold as LED panels.
3. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, contended that the goods declared as LED panels were having essential characteristics of TV and only required simple fitting of parts like speakers, remote controls, power cables, Mother board and sockets etc. to make them operational as TV and consequently, the impugned order is sustainable.
4. We have considered the contentions of both sides and perused the records.
5. We find that the appellant had placed order for LED panels. The examination report of Customs officers dated 19.11.2014 and re-examination report dated 11.05.2015 categorically stated that the goods were branded LED Panels and encased in TV casing but without the speakers, without the remote controls, without the power cables, without the Mother board and without the sockets. The box in which the goods were contained is also found to have been labeled LED panel as per the photocopy of one side of the box shown during personal hearing. It is further seen that as per the sale invoices the appellant has been selling these goods to the various traders in the name of LED panels only. Further, LED panels devoid of speakers, remote controls, power cables, Mother board and sockets can scarcely be called as having essential characteristics of Television. Indeed in the trade, LED panels are commonly available and they become television when speaker and mother board and other parts mentioned earlier are attached thereto. In the circumstances, we are of the view that as has been observed in the examination report, the goods have to be treated as LED panels (and not as LED Television). LED panels are freely importable and do not require any BIS registration.
6. In the light of the analysis above, we find that the impugned order is not sustainable and we therefore, set aside the same. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)
(R. K. Singh) (S. K. Mohanty)
Member(Technical) Member (Judicial)
Neha
2 | Page
C/50213/2016-Cu[DB]