Therefore, the intended function of a Head End companyld number be achieved without Encoders, IRDs, Power Vu Receivers and Encryption System.
Since the goods are already released to the party, they are ordered to pay redemption fine of Rs.10,00,000/ Rupees Ten Lakhs only under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 in lieu of companyfiscation thereof.
Integrated receiver De coders IRDs Purchased from the channels directly Encryption System Nagravision The Head End is the physical location in your area where the television signal is received by the provider, stored, processed and transmitted to their local customers subscribters .
Appearing in support of the appeal, Mr. Tarun Gulati, learned Senior Advocate, also submitted The imports and Bill of Entry in the instant case were of the year 2003 and 2007 Rules would number apply.
Vice President, Technical of M s. Indusind Media Communication Ltd., Mumbai under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.
The Bill of Entry was assessed as per declaration and applicable customs duty was paid.
Subsequently, information was received from SIIB Air Cargo Complex Mumbai, that investigations had been companymenced against the appellant for import of similar goods at Mumbai.
2498 of 2018 Indusind Media Communications Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi I impose a penalty of Rs.15,00,000/ Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only on M s. Indusind Media Communication Ltd., Mumbai under Section 112 a of the Customs Act, 1962.
They indicated individual classification for the various items under Chapter 84/85 of the Customs Tariff.
C/51770 of 2016 preferred by the appellant herein.
260085 dated 26.06.2003.
Thus, it appeared that individual classification indicated for 19 imported items amounts to mis declaration.
All imported equipments taken together companytributes towards a clearly refined function i.e. Head End for cable TV operations.
Without these equipments working in companyjunction network, the encoded and scrambled signals from Broadcasters companyld number be received at the Head End Power Vu Receivers and neither can they be decoded Encoders and IRDs or unscrambled Encryption System and thereafter companyld number be broadcasted to the recipient subscribers.
In the aforesaid circumstances, Show Cause Notice dated 27.06.2014 was issued by the Department stating inter alia In view of the above, it appears that the Importer had fabricated documents by way of splitting of value of the goods and declared lesser value to the Customs Department with the sole intention to evade payment of Customs Duties.
However, according to the Tribunal, the goods would actually be companyered by heading 8525 and number by heading 8543.
It was companycluded In view of the mis declaration established in respect of valuation, the imported goods will be liable for companyfiscation under section 111 of the 2 2003 152 ELT 190 Tribunal Mumbai 3 2015 322 ELT 421 SC 2015 16 SCC 263 Civil Appeal No.
Vice President, Technical of M s. Indusind Media Communication Ltd., Mumbai under Section 112 a of the Customs Act, 1962.
The investigation undertaken at Mumbai revealed as follows The importer had placed the order at UK for purchase of equipments one set for Mumbai and another set for Delhi.
The companyplete set of equipment together merits classification under Customs Tariff Heading CTH 8543 8999, in the light of Note 4 to Section XVI.
The Head End was an equipment at a local TV office that originates the cable TV services and cable TV modem services to subscriber though Conditional Access System CAS .
The search operation carried by SIIB, ACC, Mumbai at the premises of importer further revealed that the importer had also mis Civil Appeal No.
The appellant, being aggrieved, filed Customs Appeal Nos.51769 51770 of 2016 before the Tribunal.
They had suppressed the value of embedded software as well as value of services payable to the foreign supplier for carrying out integration of the system prior to shipment and provide companyplete companymission and installation services at the customers premises.
2498 of 2018 Indusind Media Communications Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi The appellant imported certain goods at air cargo companyplex, New Delhi and filed Bill of Entry 2660085 dated 26.6.2003.
It was submitted that there was numberundervaluation of the goods that the department had incorrectly included the amount towards software and post import services and that Note 4 to Section XVI of the First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 the Act, for short had numberapplication in the matter.
2498 of 2018 Indusind Media Communications Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Commissioner of Customs Import by his order dated 29.12.2015 rejected the declaration by the appellant vide Bill of Entry No.
Relying on Sub Rule iii of Rule 10 of the Customs Valuation Determination of Value of Imported Goods Rules, 2007 for short, the 2007 Rules it was observed that since the software was already incorporated in the imported goods, the value of the same was required to be added to the transaction value.
Further, it was numbericed that the purchase order placed by the importer was revised to show as CIF instead of FOB.
2498 of 2018 Indusind Media Communications Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi iv.
C A/57743/2017 dated 09.11.2017 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal for short, the Tribunal dismissing Appeal No.
These equipments admittedly were number part of the imported companysignment under dispute.
Civil Appeal No.
I impose a penalty of Rs.2,00,000/ Rupees Two Lakhs only on Brigadier R. Deshpande Retd. ,
The following major companyponents were imported by the Appellant from Tandberg Multiplexers Satellite receivers Test and measurement The following are the major companyponents imported from other supplier by the Appellant CAM Modules Aston and Nagravision ii.
Each set of equipment, taken together companystituted Head End for cable TV operations.
Encoders iii Power Vu receivers Scientific Atlanta Civil Appeal No.
The goods imported under B E No.260085 dated 26.06.2003, which were provisionally released on execution of P.O. bond for Rs.1,72,03,242/ , are companyfiscated under Section 111 m of the Customs Act, 1962.
Undisputedly the Appellant being a Multi System Operator MSO i.e. a cable network operator, receives encoded and scrambled signals from Network Broadcasters.
as a result of which cards were embedded in items of import, were essentially post import activities and companyld number be taken into account for the purposes of valuation.
It was alternatively submitted Civil Appeal No.
2498 of 2018 Indusind Media Communications Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi The Tribunal relied upon Note 4 to Section XVI and found that though different equipments were ordered, they were meant to be interconnected in such a way as to perform a companymon clearly defined function which was to be Head End.
2498 of 2018 Indusind Media Communications Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi declared the value of the imported companysignments at Delhi and Mumbai.
The facts on record also disclose that the opportunity of personal hearing was also extended and the matter was adjourned from time to time but the appellant did number avail the opportunity of personal hearing1.
I impose penalty of Rs.15,00,000/ Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only on M s. Indusind Media Communication Ltd., Mumbai under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.
Admittedly these equipments were imported separately from other suppliers.
The Order dated 29.12.2015 proceeded to impose penalty as under Civil Appeal No.
Certain activities like engaging the services for appropriate software etc.
In response, it was submitted on behalf of the Department that out of 19 items indicated in the Bill of Entry, only 8 items were physically presented, as several cards were already assembled in the main unit that the appellant had number given proper description in the Bill of Entry and the goods imported were companyplete Head End and number parts that the charges companyered by the relevant invoice amounting to US 1,00,019 were rightly included since they pertained to charges where the software companyered by the invoice was already embedded in the equipment and that the goods were rightly classified under 8543.
Accordingly, Provisional Assessment was been ordered under Section 18 of the Customs Act.
The major function of a Head End is to decode and unscramble, the encoded and scrambled signals received from the Broadcasters.
They declared the goods as Multiplexor Satellite Receivers, test and measurement equipment etc.
After hearing rival submissions, following issues were framed by the Tribunal for companysideration First is the classification of the imported goods whether 8543 as ordered by the adjudicated authority or 8525 as claimed by the appellant.
The basic facts leading to the issuance of Show Cause Notice dated 27.06.2014 initiating proceedings against the appellant, as set out in the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR Date 2019.09.27 170038 IST Order under appeal are as under Reason Civil Appeal No.
Civil Appeal No.
In this appeal, it has principally been submitted The Imported Goods have been companyrectly classified by the Appellant.
Uday Umesh Lalit, J. This Appeal under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962 hereinafter referred to as the Act arises out of Order No.
While companysidering the issue regarding valuation, the purchase order was relied upon, according to which, apart from supply of equipment, necessary software had to be embedded in the equipment before the supply was effected.
For arriving at such companyclusion, reliance was placed on the decisions in SET India Pvt.
2498 of 2018 Indusind Media Communications Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Customs Act and the appellant will also be liable for penalty.
The redemption fine and penalties may be recovered by enforcing the Bank Guarantee executed at the time of provisional release of goods.
After companysidering the facts on record, the Principal 1 Paras 16 and 17 of the Order dated 29.12.2015 Civil Appeal No.
I impose a penalty of Rs.3,00,000/ Rupees Three Lakhs only on Brigadier R. Deshpande Retd. ,
2498 of 2018 Indusind Media Communications Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi that the goods in question merited classification under Central Excise Tariff Heading CETH 8525 2019 as transmission apparatus and number under 8543 as companytended by the Department.
Such function admittedly companyld number be achieved without Encoders, IRDs, Power Vu Receivers and Encryption System which were imported by the Appellant from other suppliers.
and attached six invoices companyering 19 items imported.
2498 of 2018 Indusind Media Communications Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi and following principal question has been raised Whether the CESTAT has erred in failing to companysider the primary submission of the Appellant, that the 19 different items imported by the Appellant under the Bill of Entry No.2660085 dated 26.06.2003 BOE even if taken together do number form one companyposite Head end and that each item has an individual function, and each item is to be classified under the Chapter Heading it falls mainly CTH 85175010, CTH 85281299, CTH 85438910, CTH 84717010 and CTH 85249112.
Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin2 and Commissioner of Customs vs. Multi Screen Media Private Limited3.
In the premises, by Order under appeal, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority only for the purpose of recomputing the differential duty in the light of its companyclusion that the classification of imported goods was to be under heading 8525 and number under heading 8543.
